Hall argument, Part II: Rose goes in
Pete Rose is baseball's all-time hits leader. Equally important: He never cheated the game.
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.
Loading ...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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
105 comments Add your comment
johnny evans
July 27th, 2009
11:04 am
I =100% AGREE, PETE ROSE DESERVES TO BE IN THE HALL OF FAME,
JOHNNY L. EVANS
Barry Hardy
July 27th, 2009
11:10 am
Has everyone forgotten that Mickey Mantel and Willie Mays were accused of the same thing! They were reinstated so why not Rose?
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
11:24 am
No Jeff, Pete Rose cannot go in!
He, like every other player since the Black Sox scandal, recieved numerous briefings from baseball officials that betting of any form on the sport of baseball would result in a lifetime ban from the sport.
Despite knowing this, Rose bet on baseball.
He also broke the heart of Bart Giamatti, and it’s not beyond rational thought to presume that heartbreak contributed some to his early death.
Rose broke Giamatti’s heart not merely by betting on baseball, but also by standing in the commissioner’s office and telling bald-faced lies to the man!
That is why Rose must remain out of the hall of fame. It is also why his own former teammates such as Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench painfully say he should remain out.
Drew
July 27th, 2009
11:24 am
Agreed. Rose goes in. The man’s stats and performance easily show that he is one of the elite players in history.
P
July 27th, 2009
11:30 am
My lost love for baseball would definitely take a step in the right direction if Rose were voted in. Next to Hank Aaron and maybe Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente he WAS baseball in the 70’s-80’s. It’s time!
MightyQuinn
July 27th, 2009
11:31 am
If I’m not mistaken, Mantle and Mays were associated with gamblers AFTER their playing days. Rose gambled while still active as a player and a manager and bet on his own teams. While he says he never bet on his team to lose, it still can affect the team by, say, overusing a pitcher in order to win one game, while possibly damaging your chances later in the season by burning up a pitcher. And while I have never been in a major league locker room, I believe there have been signs in them since the Black Sox saga 90 years ago stating that gambling carries with it a lifetime ban. Rose had to have seen that sign for his entire career, yet chose to succumb to his weakness. Therefore, no HOF for Rose.
Art Vandelay
July 27th, 2009
11:35 am
Ken, did you really just pin some of the blame for Giamatti’s death on Pete Rose? That’s a stretch if I’ve ever seen one. Rose was wrong for betting on baseball, and wrong for lying about it, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as a player, he did everything the right way. He has more than paid the price for his stupidity and deserves to be in the HOF.
Mike
July 27th, 2009
11:40 am
If Rose is allowed in, then Shoeless Joe Jackson should be allowed in. Jackson was illiterate and was taken advantage of by teammates he trusted, guys who played up the team’s mutual loathing of tightwad ChiSox owner Charles Comiskey. He did take the money and he knew it was wrong but he also gave it his all in the World Series. Jackson suffered worse than Rose in that he was banned at the height of his career. His situation was different but just as Rose supposedly never threw a game, neither did Jackson. Also, rumors were that Cobb and Speaker occassionally threw a game for gamblers but evidently this was not investigated or if so, could not be proven. Both men are in the Hall.
One other comment – when Gary Sheffield first came up with the Brewers, he supposedly was irked that even though he was a hot shot prospect, Yount and Molitor received all the press. The story goes that he admitted to deliberately throwing balls away at times (he was a third baseman at the time). He told this several years ago. If true, this is an outrage and he should suffer some sort of punishment. I hated when he played for the Braves and I’m glad he’s long gone.
Ken Hudak
July 27th, 2009
11:44 am
I think Rose should go in …..
BUT…….
Unless Rose bet on every game the Reds played, that is cheating when he didn’t. Which hitters on other team had solved his starting pitcher for that game that he didn’t bet? What was his starters ERA, which one of his star players was slumping that series he skipped? When he bet and when he did not bet on his team is the bigger question than if he bet on them winning or not. Not casting a vote for your team is when he thought his team was going to lose.
The other argument I have is for Ken Stallings…..Blaming Rose for Giamatti’s death is quite a leap there. Come on man, that is just a silly and inflammitary remark. One star player betting on baseball has never been proven to clog artieries or cause heart disease in a totally different human being. Be logical.
Billy
July 27th, 2009
11:45 am
Agreed. And let’s get Shoeless Joe in while we’re at it.
Hayden Zeke
July 27th, 2009
11:47 am
Judging by Giamatti’s nicotine stained fingers and yellow pallor, I don’t think it was Rose who broke his heart, I think it was a Lucky Strike.
Rose goes in. I watched him go 0-5 in Atlanta and even when he struck out he sprinted to first in case the catcher dropped the ball. He deserves his plaque.
Archie
July 27th, 2009
11:48 am
I still agree with your original take Jeff, let the voters decide. With Mark McGwire, the voters emphatically said no, he’s not Hall worthy. I think when Barry Bonds’ name comes up on the ballot, people will realize his numbers were probably good enough before he ever even started using steroids. If less than 75% of the voters think he’s Hall worthy, then at least the people will have spoken. That’s really the purpose of the Hall isn’t it, to recognize the players that are universally agreed upon to be the legends of the game.
I say put them on the ballot, put Rose on the ballot, put the Black Sox players on there even. Let the people look at the whole of their careers and see if they measure up. If they don’t they don’t, if they do they do. If they do get in, go ahead and put it on their plaque that they were cheaters because regardless it’s still part of their legacy.
Brendan
July 27th, 2009
11:49 am
Pete Rose should definitely go into the Hall of Fame. For all the reasons Jeff Schultz just listed. Me, personally, I don’t think off the field conduct should determine eligibility in the Hall of Fame. What if a player likes to commit adultery, or father illegitimate children, for example. What does that have to do with how well the player performed on the field? It’d be one thing to “throw game” to win bets. That ISSSS affecting play on the field. That’s inexcuseable. But if some player had an excessive amount of DUI’s, unpaid parking tickets, or a half dozen illegitimate kids, fathered from Massachussetts to California, I don’t care.
My HOF criteria is based on longevity in the game, at a sustained high level of play. Rose had that in SPADES. The guy was a tremendous hitter. But he wasn’t just one dimensional. The Hall of Fame would be incomplete without him. I repeat, the Hall of Fame would be incomplete without him. The guy paid his debt to society. Now, let’s just “let-it-go.” Induct him.
CincyJacket
July 27th, 2009
11:54 am
It was never part of the original deal that Pete be declared inelligable for the Hall, just that he was kicked out of baseball. It wasn’t till Pete was about to become elligable that they changed the rules to get into the Hall, in order to keep him out.
Put him in the Hall for what he did as a player, not as a manager.
MatthewH
July 27th, 2009
11:54 am
I agree with Mike and Billy-get Shoeless Joe in there (someone who was acquitted) and then we’ll talk about Pete Rose
Vincent
July 27th, 2009
11:55 am
I really wouldn’t have a problem with Rose being eligible to be voted on for the HOF. However, if that happens, Rose still doesn’t deserve to EVER be allowed back into day to day baseball again. If Selig allows Rose to coach or manage again, he’ll be making a huge mistake.
The Doktor
July 27th, 2009
11:57 am
This guy was THE Ultimate baseball player of his day – ALWAYS giving 150% and NEVER quitting! Didn’t hurt that he could flat-out rake from either side of the plate, either. He’s a ’saint’ compared to some of these latter day punks & thugs. Vote him in where he belongs…
Jeff
July 27th, 2009
11:58 am
his accomplishments as a player have been tarnished by acts committed after his playing day were over. come on now Bud, you should be banned from baseball for not putting a stop to the steroids, I said there was a problem when Brady Anderson hit 50 Home runs, instead you guys cooked up ficticious stories about juiced baseballs, you were right about part of it anyways, but it was not the baseballs that were Juiced, Whose with me lets ban Bud from baseball, because his marketing plan of Homeruns = seats sold has tarnished this game much worse than Pete Rose ever could.
sad brotha
July 27th, 2009
12:01 pm
The loosening of standards is rampant in this country. The #1 baseball rule: BET ON BASEBALL AND BE BANNED FOR LIFE. Rose lied and then accepted the commisioner’s deal. Now let’s change the rules because of his stats? NO WAY! The message is loud and clear and has been that way for almost a century…. Baseball doesn’t tolerate gambling in its game. Give Rose a break? Give me a break. He was, and is an idiot, who was a good baseball player.
Dr. Watson
July 27th, 2009
12:02 pm
Who is Mickey Mantel?
MightyQuinn
July 27th, 2009
12:03 pm
Brendan, it wasn’t “off the field conduct” it was ON the field and AFFECTED the field of play. And again, for all you in favor of letting him in, he knowingly, willingly committed a rules violation that he knew carried a lifetime ban, due to the history of the game. I used to be a huge fan of Rose, of the way he hustled, until I grew up and realized it was largely just a way of showboating, i.e., running flat out to first after a walk. His comments after the game the Braves and Gene Garber stopped his hitting streak, “He was pitching me like it was the 7th game of the World Series” pointed out his character to me, and I was never a fan afterwards. But thats not why he shouldn’t go into the Hall. Gambling on baseball=lifetime ban. No if, ands or buts.
GT
July 27th, 2009
12:05 pm
You cannot let Rose in without letting Shoeless Joe Jackson in. Fair is fair. Personally, I don’t think Rose should go in. He bet on baseball, despite decades of warnings and policies. Period. End of discussion.
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
12:06 pm
Inflammatory or not as you may take it, there are people who were close to Bart Giamatti who insist that Rose’s conduct did break the man’s heart and sent him into great depression. I said may have contributed because I acknowledge the man’s heavy smoking. However, he died of a heart attack, not cancer.
Further, he suffered that heart attack merely eight days after handing down the decision to ban Rose. None other than Bart Giamatti’s very close friend, Fay Vincent, is quoted as saying he believed the gross anquish that Giamatti experienced leading up to the painful decision to ban Pete Rose helped aggrevate Giamatti’s heart condition.
tom thumb
July 27th, 2009
12:17 pm
Don’t forget Joe Jackson.
http://www.shoelessjoejackson.com/
Jake
July 27th, 2009
12:19 pm
Not only is Diogenes still searching, but he is crying.
Greg Norton
July 27th, 2009
12:20 pm
I think I should go into the pinch hitters wing of the Hall.
Paddy
July 27th, 2009
12:21 pm
No jeff he can’t go in.. He broke the only rule in sports that is important. Integrity and sustaining public trust. It is the ONLY thing that keeps all sports viable.
phoenix falcon
July 27th, 2009
12:21 pm
huh, what? ” he did not cheat the game?” what?
HE BET ON A TEAM HE WAS ON, NOT ONLY WAS HE ON THE TEAM, HE MANAGED THE TEAM. he’s an addict, and addict’s will do what ever they have to do to get their fix, if that means betting on or against a team he is on, makes no difference to them. He damaged the sport. if you let one cheater in, then you should let them all in. he’s a liar and a cheat, he SHOULD BE BANNED FOR LIFE.
Carter is a Fool
July 27th, 2009
12:30 pm
Cheats are cheats. No way. Bloated Built Up Barry Bondo should never be enshrined either. Lift the ban after Rose is dead. Enshrine him then, but not before. I think he should be in, but not in his lifetime.
Barry and Company should never be enshrined. Aaron hit his homeruns the honest way not through chemical enhancement. Never enshrine cheats.
All I'm Saying Is...
July 27th, 2009
12:32 pm
Schultz, your position is unsupportable and hypocritical and just because 20 years has passed does not justify allowing Rose into the HOF but not alleged and actual steroid users.
Pete Rose knowingly and willingly committed a (sacred) rules violation that he knew carried a lifetime ban, due to the history of the game. And Pete Rose repeatedly lied about it for years and years and years.
I don’t condone it but due to petty jealousy or to remain competitive since others were clearly juiced (McGwire and Sosa) and getting away with it, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Alex Rodriguez appear to or have admitted to engaging in steroid use. But you know what? It may have been illegal to possess steroids without a prescription but it was not against the rules of baseball at the time.
If you simply don’t like BB or Roger or A-Rod (and many don’t) and do not want either in the HOF, then be man enough to say it. Clemens, BB, and A-Rod would not be the first (and won’t be the last) players to not get in the HOF or to have to wait for years because sportswriters didn’t like them.
By any performance measure, A-Rod, BB, and Clemens are HOF worthy. And all of this talk about character is horse manure — otherwise a bunch of folks would have to get kicked out of HOF.
In other words, Rose, BB, Clemens, A-Rod, etc. should all be HOF eligible and have the opportunity to be voted on but you cannot suggest Rose should but the others should not. That’s baloney.
JaxDawg
July 27th, 2009
12:32 pm
Pete should be in, and has paid his debt for the gambling. If one known roid user gets in then Pete belongs there. Both gambling and steriods bring into question the integrity of the game.
What Pete did was serious, and as a previous poster mentioned the only way you could even come close to excusing it on any level is if he bet the Reds to win in every single game he played/managed. Even if he doesn’t bet on them, a non-bet is like betting the opposition will win. There’s a reason he bet on the Reds in some match ups and not others.
Herschel Talker
July 27th, 2009
12:35 pm
Schultzie – referring to my comment on the other blog, I think you underestimate the impact of “the benjamins” on people’s competitiveness, even Rose. That’s not to say he purposely threw a game, but if he tweaked his pitching staff or lineup in any way in order to set up things better for a future game, then the integrity of the game has been compromised. It would seem to me that the logical assumption is that at some point, something like that happened. To assume that not one decision was made with that in mind strikes me as major naivete.
Have an easy Tisha B’Av fast.
All I'm Saying Is...
July 27th, 2009
12:36 pm
Jeff
July 27th, 2009
11:58 am
Hey, buddy, good comment. Brady Anderson was definitely a warning signal and he only did what he did for one season (and guess what: it was a contract year meaning his contract was set to expire and he got a big money deal from Baltimore as a result and then faded away). Brett Boone was another one who was obviously juiced when he had that tremendous offensive season with Seattle.
Angus
July 27th, 2009
12:38 pm
No, no, and no to Pete.
How much more explicit can MLB be about gambling? No idiot that has to nerve to bet on the game, regardless of all else, deserves the HOF.
Now, let’s see MLB take a real stand against steroids. I’m not sure exactly which drugs should count, but why not a lifetime ban for a positive test for anabolic steroids or HGH?
PJ
July 27th, 2009
12:43 pm
I agree with your sentiment Jeff, but not your reasoning. I think Pete should be allowed in based on his playing record only. His gambling while a manager should have no bearing on his eligibility as a player. The fact that he bet on his team only to win does matter though. If you’re trying to win a game at all cost, you’re bound to use your bullpen differently than you would otherwise in certain situations. You might use your better relievers more often than warranted leading to greater fatigue/injury risk. You might also leave your regulars in a game longer in a blowout, especially if you’re losing and trying to catch up.
GTDhoo
July 27th, 2009
12:44 pm
I voted yes to this but then saw a reader comment that said Rose new that betting on baseball carried a lifetime ban and then he did it anyway. If that’s true, then he knew the risk and did it anyway and deserves to be left out. If it’s not, then I say put him in. Jeff, can you let us know what’s true?
mowreck
July 27th, 2009
12:48 pm
Well, Mickey and Willie just didn’t get caught gambling. Pete got caught and not only caught but LIED about it. Remember this was a different era. Steroids were not even thought of then and gambling was one of the worst things in terms of coaching or playing you could do, especially, if it involved baseball. Wonder what all the young kids thought about their idol Pete and his gambling. Got to draw the line somewhere. Now don’t get me wrong. I love Henry Aaron and all his accomplishments. But who says Hank is right about everything? I think the reason Hank and the Comiss are a little softer than before is because of ALL the players that seemed to be involved in this steroid era.
ITP Brave
July 27th, 2009
12:48 pm
Rose cannot be in the HOF, ever. He broke the one rule that you cannot break by betting on baseball. The only thing that removes legitimate sports from professional wrestling (and other theatre) is chance. Betting on the game, especially games that a person is managing and/or playing, adds too much of a question about whether the player or manager is trying to change the game to enhance his bet. The integrity of the game is instantly gone once this happens.
You really can’t compare steroids to betting on baseball. But, for argument’s sake, someone taking steroids is trying win the game by taking them. No one is taking them to purposefully lose the game. That, to me, is the biggest reason why gambling = absolute ban while steroids should be viewed on a case-by-case basis.
mowreck
July 27th, 2009
12:51 pm
I was a young man in that era and a huge baseball fan. And Pete Rose broke my heart when he got caught. Therefore I vote no … no matter what Hank and Mr. Schultz say.
BigMike
July 27th, 2009
12:52 pm
Why as a Nation we ask a man to pay his “price” for wrong doing, but even after he’s paid his price, we continue to hold him down? Everybody in life shouln’t be given the death sentence in life. The road to recovery sometimes is through a second chance, and Pete Rose more than anyone deserves a second chance, To the thirty and under crowd, you missed what a “real” baseball player is, and to the crowd over 40, tell me would you take anyone in todays game over Rose ? This guy played the game with a true passion, and was one of the last to run to first base after he had been walked. Pete Rose, and the “BIG RED” machine are as legendary as baseball will ever get, and to box this guy out is a blow that baseball right now doesn’t need ! Stop all the pandering and let a true player take his rightful place amongst the legends. The next time you do something wrong, or the next time you remember your past wrong doings, ask yourself, “Do I deserve a life sentence for my wrong doings”!!!!
WBK
July 27th, 2009
12:53 pm
I think the rule is stupid. Punish the player who breakes the rules and if does not break anymore rules then forget it. I do not like this expulsion by accusation of what could have happened. Look at the evidence and if Rose participated to help other teams win or cause his team to lose then punish him. Kick him out of baseball. However you can not undo his record. It is there. Just like the steroid driven world today. What is the difference? You punish one and do not punish the other.
sharecropper
July 27th, 2009
12:54 pm
Now, look. Nothing strikes so at the cornerstone of baseball than the fear that players and managers are betting on the game. See Black Sox, 1919. So he never bet “against” Cincinnati? So if I am a bookie doing this for a living and comes the day Rose doesn’t bet, I take bets for Cincy to lose. Rose is not merely a gambler — and don’t ever think he just bet as a manager. Nobody ever gets caught the “first time” he does something. he is a liar, a character assassin — two baseball commissioners, Dowd himself — a betrayer of trust –he managed to wreck Roger Kahn’s reputation, and totally, completely unrepentant. He has not, the last I read, apologized, sincerely or otherwise, for any of those acts. He is in fact belligerent. Take all the time you want, and convince me and others that Pete Rose never, ever, bet on Cincy to lose, and that Pete Rose never, ever, made a decision on the field or in the lineup that cost Cincy a game. Sorry, your rationale is nothing short of apologetic. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on Rose throwing games.
Paulie OldSchool
July 27th, 2009
1:00 pm
I have always felt that, if and/or when the day came that Rose went into the Hall, he should be accompanied by Shoeless Joe. There is no greater injustice in baseball than Joe’s absence from the Hall. As far as Rose goes, he bet on games as a player, a manager, and after he was out of baseball. He lied about it to the Commish, something Joe never did (reportedly, he tried to return the money, but then had a fantastic Series anyway). Rose goes, so should Joe, on the same day.
sharecropper
July 27th, 2009
1:01 pm
Let’s tally up here: called two commissioners and Dowd, the investigator, liars. Lied to Roger Kahn and destroyed his reputation. Bet on other teams, but never his own. Right. Got caught the first time he ever did it. Right. Is repentant and apologetic. Right. Never threw a game. Right. (And has it ever occurred to the wizards who right this that Rose doesn’t have to bet on his team? He can bet on other teams and fix his team’s game, maybe not even to lose, but to cover the spread. Take all the time you want, and convince me that Rose has not gambled since and is not gambling. Don’t hurry. All that other stuff (alcohol, the last I heard, is not a performance enhancer, and womanizing goes as high as, say, Congress and the White House) Rose dishonored the game and gave it yet another black mark. Stop enabling this creep, and wait for the other shoe to fall: betcha he fixed more than one game.
Antonio Gramsci
July 27th, 2009
1:07 pm
Let him in.
clyde
July 27th, 2009
1:10 pm
As I said in the previous blog,no.If you want to promote what’s wrong with baseball,go ahead.Promote Rose.Let them all bet.Lift the drug bans.Let the batters carry a .45 to settle arguments with the umpire for all I care.I stopped following this sport years ago because of people like Rose.If his stench doesn’t bother you,kiss his —.
StingerSplash
July 27th, 2009
1:12 pm
There is a big sign in every clubhouse that expressly tells all its denizens that gambling on baseball is forbidden. Period. And Pete’s tale now is he bet on every Reds game. It doesn’t gambling on your team to lose is verboten. It says gambling — period. He broke a long-standing and ironclad rule. And he — apparently — lied to the then commissioner about his role in gambling.
The doors to the Hall of Fame should remain shut to Mr. Rose. Forever. There is the probability that he risked the health and careers of his players in order to cover the “action” he had on a game. What if Rob Dibble had just pitched in three straight games but Rose needed to get the out and turned to him instead of someone else in the bullpen. How did his wagering affect the way he managed the game?
Sorry, Pete. No go.
Jeff
July 27th, 2009
1:18 pm
Sorry, Jeff. His wonderful skill does not get him past the fact he broke the biggest rule in baseball. There were, and maybe still are, signs in EVERY locker room stating the rule. And betting on as opposed to against his team is just semantics. The rule is there for a very good reason, and it was his arrogance that allowed him to think he was above the rule. Let him in to the Hall? Sure…just as soon as the gravediggers have filled in the dirt.
Ed Armbrister
July 27th, 2009
1:19 pm
Rose did something that goes to a violation of the very heart of the game: integrity. Rose lacks integrity — in spades. Gambling once very nearly ruined the National Past-time. Sparky Anderson, managing the Detroit Tigers, stated how hurt he was when he realized that his old player, then managing the Cincinnati Reds, ostensibly making professional chit chat, was actually pumping him for information that he could use for his illicit gambling. Rose is a rank disgrace, both a player and human being.
Willie Coyote
July 27th, 2009
1:19 pm
As long as he didn’t throw games to win bets I see no reason for a lifetime ban. Other Hall of Famers have done worse than bet on their own team to win.
brave1
July 27th, 2009
1:19 pm
Pete cares less about the H.O.F. than he does being allowed back in the game.
Why?
Money. He wants the opportunity for a team to pay him 3 million dollars to manage. He said as much five years ago.
Jt
July 27th, 2009
1:20 pm
It is time for MLB to declare the “Pete Rose Rule” -allow eligibility to the HOF without allowing him necessarily to occupy a position for a team, particularly a manager’s position.
dutchrules
July 27th, 2009
1:23 pm
LET THE MAN IN!!!! He has suffered enough. Michael Vick bets/fights dogs and kills them. All the years of bs with HGH and steroids of professional athletes. What Pete did was nothing compared to these doings. LET HIM IN!!!!
phoenix falcon
July 27th, 2009
1:23 pm
no
Paddy
July 27th, 2009
1:29 pm
Gtdhoo…If he knew there was a lifetime ban? Inside the front door in every professional clubhouse, bordered in red with hugh letters spells it out. Once you have read that notice you would never have any doubts about gambling and the sport of baseball. Every spring the FBI( retired agents mostly) makes a tour of minor and major league camps,spelling out what responsibilities players, coaches and front office folks have as it pertains to this gambling rule in baseball. There is no grey area in baseball about gambling. It is spelled out for all to see upon their entrance into the clubhouse. It is there in plain site in Caldwell, Idaho and in New York.NY. The same notice the same warning.
Art
July 27th, 2009
1:31 pm
Jeff,
Didn’t Pete Rose sign an agreement that he would not be admitted, nor to ever seek admittance to the HOF in return for not being prosecuted?
CaliChopper
July 27th, 2009
1:38 pm
If you open the doors for Rose, then the door swings open for everyone, gamblers, cheats, steroid users. Rose is no different than Bonds or Clemons, Sosa, Mac or Arod, he cheated and lied about it. He may have been one of baseballs greatest all time players but it was his arrogance that allowed him to break the rules. If he gets in it will be a shame and he will be just as arrogant and laughing his way in at baseball and the fans. If he had come clean right away he would be in now. I hope his chance at the hall stays as ruined as Ray Fosse’s career.
Observer
July 27th, 2009
1:40 pm
MightyQuinn @ 12:03 -
You are SPOT ON! Good post. If Pete Rose wants to get into the Hall of Fame he should buy a ticket.
John
July 27th, 2009
1:41 pm
The strongest argument so far against Rose in the HOF revolves around the concept that he ‘knowingly violated’ rules against gambling and is a cheat. So – how to defend the eligibility (not to mention election) of Gaylord Perry? A player whose reputation was built on – and ultimately confirmed – as one who skirted the rules of the game to gain advantage?
Rose accepted the ‘ban’ from baseball at a time when it did not compromise eligibility for the HOF – so rescinding the eligibility requirement has ZERO to do with his permanent ban from baseball handed down by Giammatti. For the HOF to admit players who knowingly cheated (Perry) or allow eligibility for those who admittedly cheated (Giambi, A-Rod etc.), is a ridiculous double-standard. Let voters decide.
John
July 27th, 2009
1:43 pm
Ed – Do you feel the same about Gaylord Perry? Alex Rodriguez? Barry Bonds? If so, I assume you would apply the same criteria and rescind/prevent their HOF admittance?
IdiotsREverywhere
July 27th, 2009
1:48 pm
He bet as a manager, not as a player, Morons. He shouldn’t be punished as a Player, but as a Manager. Sorry that I’m using logic and that will be lost on 99% of you. The fact that the Career Hits Leader isn’t in the Hall of Fame is a joke. His stat is in there, I have a picture of the plaque as well as the uniform Pete was wearing when he became the all time hits leader. The hypocrisy of MLB is a joke. Put the man in as a player, he earned it. Ban him as a Manager.
The sad thing is, if Pete Rose were a black man, we would not be having this conversation. He would be in the Hall of Fame.
Chris
July 27th, 2009
1:48 pm
Jeff – we disagree over steroids/amphetamines, but I’m with you on this one 100%. Rose deserves it.
You and Bradley have done great this season. Keep up the solid work.
Jeff Schultz
July 27th, 2009
1:50 pm
Dr. Watson – I have a Mickey Mantel on my fireplace.
GT – Shoeless Joe should be in today. He knew about plot to throw games but if you look at his stats didn’t actively participate. My opinion.
Paddy – Baseball remained viable before, during and after Pete Rose bet on games. There goes that argument.
All I’m saying – The 20 years isn’t a factor for me. I’ve always thought Rose should be in the Hall. And my position is neither “unsupportable” nor “hypocritical” at all, but I commend you on using such big words.
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
1:53 pm
Some have even said it makes a difference because he “only betted on the Reds to win.” Well, I wonder why some people think that distinction matters?
I read this written in another column and it makes perfect sense. It makes no difference if he threw the game to win a bet on his team losing, or if he bet he team would win. What if he bet $1,000 his team would win? What if the Reds were ahead by one run in the eighth inning at home and Rose gets three pitchers up. He did so because he’s desperate to win that game because he has a financial stake, or because he’s already in debt to bookies, but he weakens his bullpen for the next day’s game.
Or he bets on other teams and goes into deep debt. The bookies approach him and put the squeeze on him for insider information in return for forgiving the debt, to conspire to set odds according to information only they had.
These are the real and material reasons why baseball adopted such a harsh rule in the aftermath of the Black Sox scandal.
J-man
July 27th, 2009
1:54 pm
Personally, I’m in favor of Rose getting in, but then again I’m a forgiving person by nature. Those who are against this will do what they always do whenever this subject comes up – congratulate everyone who agrees with them and condemn those who disagree.
In life, some people are forgiving and some people just hold stuff against you forever. What matters here is not what kind of person all of us who write here are, but what kind of person Bud Selig is.
bali smith
July 27th, 2009
1:55 pm
seems almost petty today that petey rose is not not in cooperstown today because he placed bets on sports teams. Maybe that is a statement on todays society. I mean i can watch ESPN just about every night and watch texas holdem being played. I wonder if mike vick would be considered for the football hall of fame in ten years……. by then dog fighting might be tame
The Truth
July 27th, 2009
1:56 pm
Who cares, talking about pete rose is old and played out.
I like how all of a sudden all stories of Vernon Forrest murder dissapear. “Just another victim of black crime, lets sweep it under the rug and make sure its not on the front pages anymore”.
And this is for the moron who said that London/Sweden had no problem with immigrant rape of white women. Face it… if you read the liberal controlled press, then this type of stuff is covered up and you probably had no idea. Support the BNP!
“The London Metropolitan Police did provide records that showed 108 gang rapes[3 or more rapists] were reported in London in 2008 – from that alone its not exaggerating to state that the actual gang rapes are probably at least double that. Three quarters of the convicted rapists were young black men…
On the face of it, these figures may appear small, but they are nevertheless statistically significant when you consider that nearly three quarters of those convicted were black. Why the incidence should be higher amongst young black men I do not know, but the stats speak for themselves, and on the ground youth workers and community leaders confirmed our conclusions. Sheldon Thomas, a Brixton youth worker, acknowledges that there are a disproportionate number of young black boys involved in gang rape, and it’s something that’s of real concern to him, ‘because we’ve got a situation in our community that needs to be addressed. And I don’t believe that we are addressing it’.”
http://somalilandpress.com/6668/gang-rape-in-london/
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
1:58 pm
There you go again, Jeff, deliberately trying to abuse your readers by engaging in taunting and sophomoric condescension. You are the only AJC columnist who does this, and you do it frequently.
The day someone like Furman Bisher acts in such a way to a reader will be the first day. You have a lot to learn Jeff, and perhaps you should consider following Bisher’s example. In terms of taunts hurled your way, you don’t receive half the harsh recriminations that Bisher gets. So, saying you are excused doing it doesn’t bear up.
polskidawg
July 27th, 2009
2:00 pm
Jeff – you are suffering from a case of moral relativism.
As a young person in the 70’s (teens) and 80’s (twenties), my absolutely two favorite MLB players were Pete Rose and George Brett. I’m southern born and raised – not a mid-westerner.
What Pete did, was and still is, wrong. He knew the history of the game and the consequences of his actions. He doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame.
Jeff Schultz
July 27th, 2009
2:01 pm
Ken — Hey, it’s all in fun. I like the give and take. Besides, I usually only “give” when somebody comes at me with, let’s just say, a bit of a condescending attitude themselves.
Brendan
July 27th, 2009
2:02 pm
Jeff Schultz’s 1:50PM post is spot on.
datominator
July 27th, 2009
2:02 pm
Regardless of whether he voted for or against his team, by gambling at all he opened himself up to manipulation by other invidividuals with knowledge of his activities (”Hey Pete, you do such-and-such or I’ll drop a dime on ya to the Commish”). He has also never displayed even the slightest sign of contrition – after denying it for years, he finally admitted his gambling only when he thought it might get him reinstated, always only doing the bare minimum when he believes he might get something out of it – oh yeah, there’s Hall material for you…
Drew
July 27th, 2009
2:07 pm
Enter your comments here
Sonny Clusters
July 27th, 2009
2:12 pm
We was wondering if you’d condescend with us sometime, Jeff. We mostly go to Lanier and do it but some of us will go to Allatoona in the summertime. We was reading all we could about Pete Rose and we remembered that what he done was wrong and what the druggies done was wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right. That’s why nobody needs to get in the Hall without good character and nobody wants to be besmirched by smirch. Take the AJC for instance . . .
if you had a journalist, a rabbi, and a priest . . .
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
2:25 pm
Fair enough, Jeff, and I do agree there are many posters who come here to engage in that unfortunately vein of interaction. I appreciate you emphasizing it is done in fun and I agree that’s unfortunately one of the things lost in translation with words vice face-to-face interactions.
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 27th, 2009
2:27 pm
Question:
If Pete Rose never bet against the Reds, wouldn’t the days he chose not to bet be an indication that he thought they stood a good chance of losing that day?
Gambling leaves open the perception that the outcome of games could be influenced. Whether or not they actually were influenced doesn’t matter. If the paying public ever gets the idea games aren’t on the up and up, they’ll quit buying tickets. Perception is everything.
Brian
July 27th, 2009
2:32 pm
His playing career obviously justifies admission into the Hall. I would also be for reinstatement in spite of the gambling, since it is well documented he only bet for his team. But I don’t think his actions over the last 20 or so years have shown that he really wants the honor. He outright lied about it for a couple decades, and after trouble with the law and with money, finally fessed up to sell copies of his book. Think of it as violating his parole on numerous occasions. So I say no to reinstatement, and not even because of the gambling.
MindSweeper
July 27th, 2009
2:36 pm
Pete Rose indeed DOES belong in the baseball HOF in cooperstown. When I grew up and watched baseball as a kid, I was initially fascinated by baseball ONLY because of Pete Rose. I used to watch the Cincinnati Reds play ball in the ’70s when they had their famous Big Red Machine. When Rose would come up to bat, it was evident that he would ALWAYS get his moneys worth. Even when Rose drew a walk he would hustle to first base; thus the nickname Charlie Hustele was placed on Rose. When Rose would hit a ball in the infield or even bunt if Rose would determine the play would be close, Rose would dive headfirst into FIRST base. Of course, Rose would dive headfirst into second, third and home plate as well. This obsessive husling by Rose was contagious and I think that Rose impacted many players and fans by his outragiously dynamite play. When Rose retired I missed that all out hustle that only he was famous for. When Rose was denied entrance in the Hall of Fame I lost my appetite for baseball entirely. Ive never really followed baseball closely since Pete was banished from baseball. Pete is a throwback to the golden era of baseball and my thought about Pete is that if Rose is denied entrance into the Hall of Fame, then everyone who is currently enshrined in the Hall of Fame needs to be removed, and the Hall of Fame needs to be closed down. Pete is basball and he is the reason why many fans developed the likeness toward the sport. I never would have loved baseball had it not been for Pete Rose.
Sonny Clusters
July 27th, 2009
2:37 pm
Pete Rose would always run to first base even when he got a base on balls and sometimes he’d keep on running against the Braves. They’d go to sleep out there with nobody in the stadium to make any noise. We was reading where Pete Rose could turn a walk into a double. Jeff, you’re old enough . . . did you ever see such a thing?
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 27th, 2009
2:42 pm
Sonny:
Not sure but I think I’m older than Jeff (I’m the same age as Mark Bradley). I’ve never seen anybody turn a walk into a double.
Paddy
July 27th, 2009
2:44 pm
Jeff my point is for baseball to remain viable, gambling must be a non-issue with fans. They must believe that the sport they are watching is not fixed and the outcome was never in doubt before the first pitch.
Thanks.
phoenix falcon
July 27th, 2009
2:49 pm
IdiotsREverywhere
if rose was black, he would be in JAIL.
Casey Stinkle
July 27th, 2009
2:59 pm
The man bet on his team to WIN. I got no problem with that. The numbers speak for themselves. He should have been in years ago.
Steve
July 27th, 2009
3:09 pm
No HOF for Rose. As numerous others have pointed out, he knew MLB rules on gambling and did so anyway. Don’t break the rules if you’re not willing to live with the consequences.
MLB began to lose my interest years ago due to strikes. They took another step by choosing to do nothing to a growing steriod crisis; other than sitting back and promoting the home run race between McGuire & Sosa (both who are now known to use steriods – despite their denials).
Entry into the HOF should not rely solely in on the player’s field activity. A person’s overall character should be evaluated as well. HOFers are the some of the people we teach our childeren to look up to. What are we saying to our children if we indicate it’s OK to gamble within your sport and repeatedly lie about it, just so long as you play the game great.
ozone
July 27th, 2009
3:18 pm
Somebody turned a walk into a double this year.
I would keep Rose out. Yes, he was a great player but he bet on the game. In my opinion, you have to look at everything. You can’t just take his numbers and ignore the rest. Besides, anyone that dives into first on a regular basis is a jackass.
Larry
July 27th, 2009
3:20 pm
Jeff,
You conveniently left out one small detail. Aside from expressed and clear violation of a player or manager gambling on baseball, Rose repeatedly looked you and me in the eye and lied about doing so for many, many years, leaving to wonder all along who was telling the truth.
So, as long as they put an asterisk by his name that says “Pete Rose not only gambled on baseball while a major league manager, when asked if he did so he lied and said ‘no’ and repeatedly lied for nearly two decades.”
StingerSplash
July 27th, 2009
3:22 pm
Of course, it was funny to listen to Jim Powell and the Lemmer yesterday on the radio talk about switch-hitting (that’s being a batter from both sides of the plate, not something that goes on in Midtown after dark, por favor) and how hard it was to do and Powell called Chipper the best switch hitter of all time. Good? Sure. Great? Without question. Best? Well, there is that Peter Edward Rose guy, with 4,256 hits all-time. He wasn’t bad, either. As a player.
But his willful and capricious attitude toward the game’s most stringent tenet should deny him the chance to join his brethren of greats in Cooperstown forever.
retired scout
July 27th, 2009
3:31 pm
The bloggers who stated that tne “no gambling signs” are present in every minor and major league clubhouse, and that every player receives a no gambling lecture at start of each season are absolutely correct. The person who equated Gaylord Perry’s “KY Jelly” pitches with gambling on games is laughable. If only you knew how seldom he actually threw such a pitch in a game you would be amazed. He used the perception that he COULD throw the pitch much more than he ever threw it. Also it is like change-ups, cutters, sinkers, curves, etc..some can throw the pitch well and some can’t.
Finally, the biggest reason, IMO, that there is no sympathy for getting Rose in the Hall or back in baseball is that the guy was always a hot dog and a complete jerk…in other words, no one in baseball was sad to see him go, or cares if he ever comes back. Just my opinion.
JT
July 27th, 2009
3:36 pm
Until recently, I was mostly on the side of Rose being re-instated and subsequently eligible for the Hall of Fame. My stance has changed though. No one disputes the fact the man was a great player and a 1st ballot Hall of Fame calibre player. That alone does not gurantee eligibility nor should it.
There were no questions that if you were caught betting/gambling on baseball this was going to happen – no matter who the player was. In a time where we see rules bent for the privaleged too many times I respect this. The Steroid era presents a completely different delima. The two are not like comparing apples to apples. There was no rule saying definitively that if you were caught taking substances….you would be banned for Life. I don’t know the answer on how to deal with the Steroid era but only to say I think the fans/writers will take it on a case by case basis and decide.
If Baseball were to back off of it’s one rule that has been stated, known and never been in question then what does that say about the integrity of the game? Rose was great and what he did wasn’t horribly and yes you can argue which of the two are worse but you can’t argue the fact of which was without a shadow of a doubt 100% clear and that is if you bet on Baseball you are banned for life.
If they don’t care if anyone bets on baseball change the rule, allow Pete in and wait to see what happens. If only they were this stern with substance abuse when it first started occuring we may see a much cleaner game and not be in this mess. Just because its tough doesn’t mean we should say “well we’ve got something worse now so the other isn’t so bad – let’s let him off the hook”. We can’t be so shortsighted and bend the rules because of we happen to be in an era of extreme forgiveness and lack of accountability.
Jeff Schultz
July 27th, 2009
3:38 pm
Paddy – I complete agree with that part of it, and I get the no-gambling rule, really. Just saying he’s never been accused of throwing a game or betting against his team and I think he deserves to be in Coop-town.
Larry – Yes, he lied. I think everybody knows that. Doesn’t change anything for me.
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
3:41 pm
I don’t believe a runner can turn a walk into a double. He is awarded first base so there’s no play. He can wait until the pitcher receives the ball and the umpires resume play and then steal second. But, until the umpire motions to the pitcher to resume play, play is suspended for the bases on balls.
Brian
July 27th, 2009
3:51 pm
Ken, you’re right. The umpire would have to declare that the ball is back in play (presumably the pitcher would have the ball), and then perhaps the runner can catch the other team napping. It would be a stolen base. You couldn’t just run to second on a walk…the ball is dead.
Del
July 27th, 2009
3:54 pm
Put him in the HOF, but continue to bar him from active baseball participation.
Hillbilly Deluxe
July 27th, 2009
3:57 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Henry Aaron against Pete Rose being in the Hall? His teammates Joe Morgan and Johnny Bench are, as well as many other Hall members.
Michael Bicknell
July 27th, 2009
4:08 pm
I think it is terrible that Joe Jackson isn’t in the Hall of Fame but he new what was going on in 1919 and was banished from baseball for his actions or rather inaction. When Landis levied his punishment it was the first time that a penalty that severe was incurred anywhere in professional sports (and probably since). At that moment a precedent was set. Rose knew of that precedent and still his arrogance told him that he was above the rules. He bet on baseball while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds. Let the all-time hits leader serve as a cautionary tale to those who think their talent or achievements give them a free pass in a society based on rule of law.
The only reason we buy a ticket or tune in is because we believe the outcome is decided on the field. Take tha integrity away and you sully the name of every hard-working ballplayer that ever stepped on a major league diamond. Take that away and you have professional wrestling.
And if you let Rose in the HoF what then? Would it have been OK for Bobby Cox to bet on the Braves every 5th day when Maddux was pitching. And just because Charlie Hustle never bet on the Reds to lose doesn’t mean that he didn’t change a pitching rotation so he had a more favorable matchup in order to clean up at the sportsbook.
No steroids and no gamblers.
ozone
July 27th, 2009
4:32 pm
Ken and Brian, ball four isn’t automatically dead unless the pitcher threw it into the press box. The runner can try and take second if he wants. If ball four was a wild pitch, the catcher would have to go get it. It’s not dead. A runner took second after a walk earlier this year in an MLB game.
MIKE
July 27th, 2009
4:32 pm
JEFF YOU ARE A MAN WITH PASSION REALLY LIKE ROSE AND HE PLAYED WITH A PASSION NOT SEEN IN TODAY TIMES.. BUT HE DID BRAKE A MAIN RULE INTEGRITY THE GAME DEPENDS ON IT THE FANS HAVE GOT TO KNOW THAT THERE NO BETTING THIS TO ME BETTING IF THE WIN OR LOSE ON HIS ON TEAM DOES NOT MATTER WHO IS TO SAY IF CONTUNIED AND HE HAD A BAD STREAK THAT IT MIGHT HAVE GONE THE OTHER WAY I TRULY DONT SEE HOW YOU CAN NOT CONNECT THAT THIS IS MUCH WORSE ISSUE THAN STERIODS THIS DESERVE A LIFE TIME BAN INTEGRITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE GAME FANS IN BASEBALL HAVE TO BELIEVE IT IS REAL SORRY ROSE YOU MADE THE DECISION AND YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
5:18 pm
Ozone, I believe you should check the rule book further. Upon ball four, play is suspended. That is why a manager nearly always sends the runners from first in motion on a full count. It is because the outcomes all favor the runners. If it is ball four, then the catcher is not allowed to throw a runner out. Play is suspended immediately.
Ken Stallings
July 27th, 2009
9:07 pm
Here are the rules applying to a batter when ball four is called:
6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—
(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;
Rule 6.08(a) Comment: A batter who is entitled to first base because of a base on balls must go to first base and touch the base before other base runners are forced to advance. This applies when bases are full and applies when a substitute runner is put into the game.
If, in advancing, the base runner thinks there is a play and he slides past the base before or after touching it he may be put out by the fielder tagging him. If he fails to touch the base to which he is entitled and attempts to advance beyond that base he may be put out by tagging him or the base he missed.
Here are the rules applying to runners upon ball four:
7.04 Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when—
(a) There is a balk;
(b) The batter’s advance without liability to be put out forces the runner to vacate his base, or when the batter hits a fair ball that touches another runner or the umpire before such ball has been touched by, or has passed a fielder, if the runner is forced to advance;
Rule 7.04(b) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.
Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base.
The key term in both the cases of the batter and the runner(s) is they are allowed to advance one base without “liability.” Ultimately, this means that unless the umpire officially suspends play, the runners once they touch their respective bases allowed without liability then submit to the normal rules whereby when the ball is in play in the field, they may be tagged out if off base.
So, I was wrong. Play is not automatically suspended. The proper term is liability.
Ozone
July 27th, 2009
9:14 pm
Thanks for looking all of that up.
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…