The subject line says it all.
But for background, and for why this question is topical, you could read this AP article.
I say no, Pete should stay banned, even if he cops to the charges.
Why? I think the integrity of the game is at stake. Zero tolerance.
Well, I’ve never seen any evidence that he bet on baseball, which, IIRC, was the reason for his banning. Does any such evidence even exist?
Yes.
Yes, there is overwhelming evidence that he bet on basebll. http://www.dowdreport.com/
I imagine that if he cops to the charges, they will lift the ban and let him in.
I know it is my own irrational opinion, but I hope he stays banned. I am tired of the unseemliness that floats around him. I am hopeful he has ridden the money train of being banned as far as it will go. If he makes the HOF, he can then make a batch of cash as the newly legit Pete Rose. I want him to stay soiled and weak, and hopefully wither away as a forgotten caricature.
The ban should only get lifted if he comes clean.
Haj
Oh yeah, my opinon on the situation. I think until Rose admits to his wrongdoings, he should remained banned. If he does finally admit to what he obviously did, then maybe he can go to the Hall, but he wouldn’t be owed a spot.
On the contrary, once the ban is lifted, he would be owed a spot.
The only thing that ever kept Pete from the Hall was the gambling allegation. No one would deny that he’s earned inclusion in the Hall through his actions on the field in his playing career. So, once you remove the ban and exonerate him of the wrongdoing, there really is nothing to justify keeping him from the Hall.
That being said, I am a hardliner and oppose reinstating Pete.
Zev Steinhardt
Considering some of the things going on in pro sports these days, much worse than a few bets, IMHO, and the players are allowed to continue playing, I say let him back in.
Rose is an unapologetic SOB. The ban should not be lifted. Bart Giamatti had the evidence in his hands, but agreed not to splash it all over the press in order to allow Rose to save face, because Bart, unlike the current commissioner, always acted in the best interests of the game. Rose, ever since, has used that lack of formal evidence as “proof” of his innocence. He has been unrepentant to a fault and has done nothing since Giamatti’s death except campaign to be reinstated. He is a bad, bad man.
I would much sooner reinstate Joe Jackson and Bucky Weaver than Pete Rose.
I agree completely zev_steinhardt that if the ban were lifted, Rose would be HOF material. What I meant was that simply admiting his gambling wouldn’t necessarily mean that MLB owed it to him to lift the ban and therefore clear the way for him to enter the Hall.
I’m not entirely clear on his bannishment or agreement with MLB though, but I thought that just admiting what he did wouldn’t necessarily get his ban lifted. But if that is really all he has to do to guarantee the reversal of his ban from baseball, then yeah I think he would be owed a spot once he admitted what he did.
Thank you. How many chances did Strawberry get? And this is the league that still refuses to really get tough on steroid users because it hurts their bottom line. How dare they pretend that pro ball is anything other than a seedy, dirty, moneymaking scam anyway? They are a bunch of hypocrites and their supposed concern for moral rectitude is nothing short of laughable. I wouldn’t be involved in the baseball business any faster than I’d run a whorehouse, but I have a soft spot for Pete, and I’d like to see him in the Hall of Fame.
Come on guys, if Tyson can bite half a boxers ear off and remain in boxing surely their is room to let another loser back into professional sports. I couldn’t care less either way though. Only thing more boring than baseball is basketball.
It depends what lifting the ban means. If Selig only means to make Rose eligible for the Hall of Fame, that’s fine by me. Rose is entitled to his plaque in Cooperstown.
But if lifting the ban would make Rose eligible to be a manager, coach or front office executive again, forget it! There is absolutely no way he should be allowed to work in baseball again, even if he puts on a show of remorse and crocodile tears.
What about Ty Cobb intentionally trying to injure other players? Michael Jordan’s gambling problem? Ray Lewis’ murder trial? O.J. Simpson? Jayson Williams killing his chauffer? Nate Newton?
There are athlete’s out there who have enough drugs to make a Colombian drug lord envious yet that’s okay. A little slap on the wrist and everything’s peachy-keen. They can be arrested and even convicted of killing someone and the most they get is a suspension (if currently on a team).
Pete Rose was just involved with some gambling yet he has to pay for the rest of his life.
That’s funny. I thought it was entertainment where people paid money to go see a sport played at the highest quality. I suppose you never go see movies or listen to music either?
Rose should not be let back in until he admits to making a specific mistake and tells us what it is. Gambling is different from wife beating, drug use, womanizing, and drinking. Those are crimes against society and society is responsible for punishment. Gambling is a crime against the sport. A therapist who gossips about his patients will be banned from being a therapist. A car mechanic who gossips about his customers will not get punished. Different things affect different lines of work.
It’s simple. Rose plea bargained to the worst punishment possible. If he were tried before baseball and convicted, he would have gotten the same punishment that he agreed to beforehand. Why would he do that unless there was some incriminating evidence? Simple. He didn’t want there to be proof that he bet on baseball and his own team. But now he wants back in? This would be like OJ Simpson plea bargaining to the death penalty, then whining that he didn’t do it.
If Selig goes through with this, he will go down as the worst commissioner (if he’s not already) in the history of sports, including the CBA.
What this tells our kids is that rules and consequences don’t matter. Go ahead and break the rules. Don’t even repent. Just get the public behind you and enough sympathy, and you will get your way. Johnny Bench and Jack Morris have said as much.
This is one of the few arguable things in life that I’m passionate about.
The difference with all the other cases you mentioned (Ty Cobb excepted) and Pete is that they did not directly affect the sport. OJ’s (alleged) murder of two people happened long after his playing career was over and had no effect on the sport. Ditto with the other cases. For that reason, I wouldn’t keep Pete out of the HOF because of his tax-evasion conviction.
However, betting on baseball has long been recognized as being extremely detrimental to the game. It is a rule posted in every clubhouse in Organized Baseball. Every player knows the cardinal rule of not betting on baseball. By doing so, and especially when in a position (as a player and manager) to affect the outcome of games, he undermined the credibility of the game. For that, he deserves to be kicked out. Permenantly.
As for Cobb, yes Cobb was an SOB. However, rougher play than you would expect today was considered normal for the day. Players were expected to try to take each other out when sliding into a base, etc. Cobb simply seemed to take it to the extreme. When he was voted in in 1936, that was still somewhat the case.
Zev Steinhardt
Absolutely not. Simply because public opinion requests it is not suitible. Baseball, and particularly the HoF, has always been steadfast in its stance on gambling on the sport - in fact, IIRC there is a sign posted in every clubhouse in professional baseball stating this - you can commit just about any transgression under the sun but this, and this is widely known.
Look at the case of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson. He was banished by Commissioner Landis for his “participation” in the 1919 Black Sox scandal although his culpability is questionable, given the fact that he had the highest batting average in the series an had no errors in the field. He pleaded his innocence until his dying day to no avail.
Is Jackson is kept out due to the legacy of Landis? If so, shouldn’t Rose be kept out due to the legacy of Giamatti/Vincent?
Even Bill James, who thinks the Dowd report is a bunch of hooey, doesn’t agree with you. He states (correctly, I believe) that it is completely illogical to honor Rose with the game’s ultimate honor, and yet at the same time say that he isn’t eligible to work as a manager, coach, GM or even batboy. If he’s in, he’s in all the way. If not, then he’s out all the way. You can’t say he’s in for the Hall, but out for everything else.
Zev Steinhardt
Kids sort of learn this already from the way certian sports athletes act. Hit someone with a car? That’s okay if you’re an athlete. 80 pound of marijuana in your car? No big deal * if you’re an athlete*.
Betting on or against your team when you have an influence on the outcome does tarnish the game’s integrity. Was it ever proven that Rose bet on or against his own team? If so then keep him out.