What is it about the Pete Rose gambling story, or alternatively the collected American psyche that allows this continued level of invective toward Rose for having bets on a sport he knew enough about to bet on?
As far as I know he didn’t rig any games or even try to rig games.
I can only compare his treatment to that of Aussie cricketers Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh. In 1981 while playing against England they passed a bookmaker betting 500-1 about England winning the game. Thinking the odds were ridiculous Lillee and Marsh backed England “for a laugh” and despite the improbability England won, winning Lillee and Marsh tens of thousands of pounds. Later when this was all revealed in the press (there had been no subterfuge, the bets were made publicly by Lillee and Marsh) there were excited calls for their dismissal from the team, fines etc. Nothing happened and they finished their careers as revered figures in cricket. In fact they are 2 of the 23 members of the Cricket Hall of Fame at the MCG. Both have extensive coaching backgrounds all over the world and in fact aided England in rewinning the Ashes.
The idea of punishing someone after their career by denying them a rightful plaudit would be anethema to most Aussies. Other than restrictions eliminating brief careers the only conditions are:
Five years out of the game.
Not based on statistics alone, although obviously important, rather emphasis on their Legend status.
Player(s) to have significant impact on the way the game is played.
So why so different in the US? I was recently talking to a South African and he gave the impression that many South Africans forgive Hansje Cronje (who did rig games) because of his significant contributions to cricket and a sense that he must have had powerful demons to risk so much for relatively virtually nothing. He was a very wealthy, revered figure.
And if a court decided that non baseball stuff didn’t count and they had to let Pete in - whose been warming his seat? Which guy shouldn’t be there?
Being a non-baseball fan from Philly, I have endured years of Pete Rose debate and speculation. I think the main reason is that he is an arrogant prick who cheated the rules (by betting on baseball) and then blatently lied about it for decades.
Gambling was accorded “the ultimate sin” status in baseball in 1919, when the Black Sox scandal nearly ended the sport. Eight Chicago White Sox conspired with gamblers to fix the World Series and when it was discovered, baseball execs bent way over backwards to make it clear to the public that it would never happen again - not unlike the steroid punishments being implemented today. So every ball player knows that gambling is the worst, that baseball execs act swiftly to address it and that the punishment is severe. A person can disagree with that, but everybody knows it. So Pete Rose, with eyes open, crossed a bright line known to everyone.
What Rose was doing wasn’t a “lark” like your example with cricket. Rose was a compulsive gambler who went out of his way to set up a process where he could indulge in his habit and hide it from people. So he consciously knew he was violating a baseball law and actively sought to hide it.
Furthermore, Rose committed the ultimate “ultimate sin” - he bet on the outcomes of games he was involved in. Sure, everyone knows that many factors might influence how a player gets into a specific game and gambling is simply another factor, but, for appearance’s sake, it is key that the game seem as fair as possible. It is simply not possible to do that if a player or coach bets on the game. No argument will win this - it is simply not done.
Rose has actively sought to avoid acknowledging his culpability for decades, only coming clean a few years ago. So he wanted to be reinstated, etc., without acknowledging he had committed the ultimate sin baseball-wise.
Finally, when he did finally come clean, he did so coldly - his admission came across as forced, false and not heartfelt. Like it or not, a person who is apologizing in a public forum needs to do it a certain way and Rose didn’t do that.
I am sure there are other factors, but these are the ones that come to mind. It is a very different situation than your example - at least, my intent is to show that.
I would add that where he finally came clean didn’t help: in his book sel-pitingly entitled “My Prison Without Bars,” Rose describes a meeting with MLB Commisioner Selig in November 2002 in which he was asked if he had bet on baseball.
*“Yes sir, I did bet on baseball,” he answered, according to his book.
Asked how often, he replied, “Four or five times a week. But I never bet against my own team, and I never made any bets from the clubhouse.”
When asked why, Rose responded, “I didn’t think I’d get caught.”*
So did he do it to move books? Maybe. Jim Gray speculated that it was a Hall of Fame attempt. According to baseball rules, players have until 20 years after they retire to be elected into the Hall of Fame by a committee of baseball writers. At the time of his admission Rose had only two more chances to get onto the ballot, December 2004 and December 2005.
After that, a Rose needs to make it thru the Veterans Committee, an 85-member group of whom about two-thirds are members of the Hall of Fame. According to Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci, the Veterans aren’t seen as a sympathetic voting block.
Why the level of hatred? Are you kidding me? I think a better question is, why do so many people still love him, stick up for him, and defend him so vehemently?
Even now, my sense is that there are more sportswriters angry at the Commissioner for keeping Pete Rose off the Hall of Fame ballot than there are who are fuming about what Pete did.
Pete Rose cheated. He broke one of baseball’s most important rules, then spent decades lying about it. That SHOULD make him a pariah among baseball fans and writers. In reality, it hasn’t! He still makes a fortune signing autographs. Tunbe in to sports radio talk show, and you’ll hear hundreds of yahoos making excuses for him. And every year, at Hall of Fame voting time, you’ll read dozens of columns by prominent sportswriters insisting that Pete wwasn’t so bad, and deserves to be reinstated (not just given his lousy plaque in the Hall of Fame, but allowed to be a manager again).
In my view, there isn’t nearly ENOUGH hatred for Pete Rose.
In my opinion? Sure he did. Rose was a compulsive gambler - gambling on a sport in which he was also a coach. He wouldn’t have to tell the guys to lose, or anything; he could just pull a pitcher too soon or leave a tired one in too long, and that would affect the outcome of the game.
He says he didn’t and no one can prove he did, but I believe that, put into that situation, a true addict would be unbearably tempted to nudge things his way. He just would. And I think he did. I have no proof, but I do believe it.
Word Man and Glassy pretty much hit it. Betting on the other team is betting against your own team- could actually be worse than betting on your own team. And betting only random games is very suspect- why not today? Is somebody hurt? Does he now like his own chances? Or is his pitcher really hot today? Professional gamblers watch these things very carefully.
Pete Rose in the Hall? Hell, no.
Two points-
First, you can do almost anything unsavory and still be in the Hall of Fame. It is populated with, among good and decent men, alcoholics, cheaters, drug addicts, wifebeaters, bullies and murderers (allegedly).
The ONLY thing you cannot do in baseball is bet on the game or associate closely with those who do. That’s it. My grandpa’s generation knew it, my dad’s generation knew it, my generation knows it, and Pete Rose sure as hell knew it. His choice, his consequences.
Second, what if PR really IS some kind of addict and unable to control his impulses? Okay, let’s say that he is. Part of recovery from addiction is owning up to all of one’s previous bad behavior and making genuine amends for it. Getting your side of the street clean and keeping it clean.
PR has never genuinely felt that his behavior was wrong, nor has he taken any responsibility for it. He is always the victim- it’s him, or them, or whatever. His meager, bullshit attempt at a mea culpa was only to sell his book, and try to get into the HOF. Failed.
The fact that Rose is a jerk is beside the point- it is explicitly against the rules to bet on baseball. Admitting it does not mean you get a pass. End of discussion.
I’m not a baseball fan, or an expert by any means, and even I can see that the guy’s a weasel who deserves all the scorn he can get.
It’s so obvious that he’s just a scheming, manipulative pusbag. First he denies it, but he also AGREED to the ban. Then he spends his time doing everything he can to get out of that contract. For years, he claimed he was innocent. Then, when that didn’t work, he coughs out a measely little “Well, okay, yeah I did-but not that much! So can I get in now? How about now? Now? Pretty please? Oh, you guys are so mean to poor poor me!”
And from what I’ve seen, he’s not sorry he did it, either. He’s only sorry he got caught.
(And yes, for every Roberto Clemente in the hall, there are also a few Ty Cobbs, but hey, the rules don’t say asshats can’t get in, just people who bet on the game.)
Also, lots of people already hated him before anybody knew about the gambling. He was never a very likeable guy. I remember him always getting booed whenever he came to bat (except at home games).
I hate Pete Rose because he played most of his career for the Reds, a team I hated growing up. Everything else added on is gravy for me.
I like to think of him as the player who made the most outs in major league history.
I don’t know how many supporters Rose has outside of the Cincinnati area. I would think his support drops off sharply after you get out of Southern Ohio and Northern Kentucky.
And he is kind of a prick. He went in way too hard on a play at home plate during an All-Star Game and hit the catcher so hard he could have really hurt him.
It’s great to be a hard-nosed, hard-charging player. But it’s shitty to possibly end a guy’s career trying to make a play in a friendly game that doesn’t matter statistically.
As I recall, he really did hurt him. He took him out for the rest of the season. When asked about it, Rose said, “I didn’t realize that we were playing woman’s softball.”
Things might have turned out differently if A. Bartlett Giamatti hadn’t dropped dead right after banning Pete. Some even attributed his heart attack to the stress of dealing with the Pete problem. Giamatti gave up his life for the sake of baseball, how dare you defile his memory by overturning his decision, is the thinking in the background that whether irrational or not is kind of hard to shake.
I agree that once gambling is allowed to infect the game, baseball will be destroyed.