As Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro and every other lyin’ cheat in the baseball record books seem to be moving further away from Cooperstown, Pete Rose could be moving closer.
I didn’t plan on blogging about this today. But if emails and comments are any indication, several readers seem confused, if not angered, by my positions on Rose (whom I believe should be in the Hall) and proven steroid uses (who should not be). Some think they are in conflict with each other. I don’t. So I felt the need to clear the air.
Also the New York Daily News is now reporting that commissioner Bud Selig might be softening his position on Rose and could make him Hall-eligible again. According to long-time baseball writer Bill Madden, one reason for Selig’s change in thought were comments made by our own Henry Aaron.
COOPERSTOWN — Thanks to the behind-the-scenes lobbying from some of the most influential Hall of Famers, commissioner Bud Selig is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose’s lifetime suspension from baseball.
The tip-off that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball’s all-time hit king was Hank Aaron’s seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters in the lobby of the Otesaga Hotel on Saturday. In declaring for the first time that he would want an asterisk put on the achievements of any steroid cheats elected to the Hall of Fame, Aaron brought up Rose, who, in August of 1989, was given a lifetime ban for gambling on baseball, saying: “I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there.”
It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others.
Here’s my thought on Rose: He never cheated the game. Gambling did not enhance his ability to hit a baseball. He did not accumulate 4,256 hits because he obsessed over whether the Packers would cover.
Now, gambling on baseball is verboten for players. Rose broke that rule. So a suspension was understandable. But a “lifetime” ban from the sport and the resulting loss of eligibility for the Hall of Fame never was justified. Baseball commissioned John Dowd to look into the gambling allegations. Dowd interviewed bookies and assorted lowlifes. He determined that Rose bet on baseball, including 52 Cincinnati Reds games. However, at no point, Dowd concluded, did Rose bet against Cincinnati.
And if you really want to read the whole Dowd Report, here you go.
So what’s the argument against Rose? That he bet on his own team to win a baseball game? I’m not condoning his gambling, but come on. Baseball’s all-time hits leader is not worthy of induction because he really, really wanted his team to win even more so than usual because he bet $2,000 on the game?
I’ve got another poll to the left, and I’m casting the first vote. Rose goes in. Go ahead and weigh in.
105 comments Add your comment
Michael Bicknell
July 27th, 2009
9:50 pm
What does the rule book say about a ball four wild pitch? And if there is a runner on 2nd with 1st base open and the runner breaks for 3rd on a 3-2 count. If the pitch is indeed ball four, what is the fate of the baserunner?
Ken Stallings
July 28th, 2009
12:45 am
Rule says the runner who was on the base originally has the right to be there, but that if two runners occupy is at the same time, then the runner who advanced from the prior base can be tagged out. Upon tagging out that runned the other runner is safe.
If a runner attempts a stolen base from second on a ball four with first base previously unoccupied, then the runner can be thrown out at third.
Ronnie
July 29th, 2009
1:04 pm
It really doesn’t matter anymore. The game is so screwed up…There’s no real commissioner. The players are greedy as heck,. The don’t look like baseball players. All of those damn dreadlocks. They don’t behave like baseball players. Baseball players used to be roll models for kids. When you look at other players today.. I say, “Hell yes Lift his suspension.” He was a great player when the game was honorable.
Ken Stallings
July 29th, 2009
9:11 pm
Ronnie, do hairstyles really by themselves turn honorable men into dishonorable men? Do you really believe that, or was that some inflammatory statement so you can come back to a days old column to see the collateral damage?
Don’t think it will work.
Baseball wasn’t more honorable when Rose played. Just like it wasn’t more honorable when Mantle played, or when DeMaggio played or Ruth or Cobb. In fact, prior to integration, one has to admit that was a pretty dishonorable era to deny athletes a fair break because of skin color, but the players weren’t responsible for that. At least players like Dizzy Dean used to sponsor post-season exhibitions between MLB and Negro League players.
If all Manny Ramirez had to counter his excellence as a hitter were his dreadlocks, he’d be pretty much bulletproof from censure. Unfortunately, how he treated the Red Sox and his ban worked enough damage to review.
mike
August 25th, 2009
5:09 am
I personally think baseball itself is a first class joke. I grew up watching Rose, Aaron, Jackson, and the heyday of the 1970’s, and those guys gave 110% on the field. Now, if you want to look at issues, look no further than Giamatti, due to the fact that it wasn’t Pete Rose who killed him, but a 5 pack a day cigarette habit and arrogance. Then Fay Vincent comes along and blames Rose for Giamatti’s death (I guess Vincent is an M.D. huh)?
Many people forget that Steinbrenner was banned for life in baseball due to known association with gamblers and payoffs, but you can do all of that and STILL get re-instated. Then you have the players strike in 1994 (which is the day I gave up watching baseball) due to greed and arrogance between the players and owners.
Then the drug era in baseball begins with performance enhancing drugs (and lying about usage of such things), etc. It speaks volumes when Aaron, Schmidt, and Rice go to bat for Pete Rose, but the likes of Bud Selig won’t budge on the issue.
When Vincent and Selig croak, they’ll join Giamatti in hell…