PDA

View Full Version : Selig on Pete Rose reinstatement: “Still Reviewing Application”



savafan
07-16-2009, 08:49 PM
http://www.williamsondailynews.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Selig+on+Pete+Rose+reinstatement-+%E2%80%9CStill+Reviewing+Application%E2%80%9D-%20&id=2968372-Selig+on+Pete+Rose+reinstatement-+%E2%80%9CStill+Reviewing+Application%E2%80%9D-&instance=secondary_sports_left_column

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Twelve years later, baseball commissioner Bud Selig still is examining Pete Rose's application for reinstatement.

The career hits leader agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989 after an investigation concluded he bet on the Cincinnati Reds to win while he was manager of the team.

Rose applied for reinstatement in September 1997 and met with Selig in November 2002. His effort to gain reinstatement appeared to falter after he admitted in his 2004 autobiography, "Pete Rose: My Prison Without Bars," that his previous gambling denials were false.

"It is under review," Selig said Tuesday during a question-and-answer session with the Baseball Writers' Association of America. "He did, as you know, accept voluntarily a lifetime suspension from Bart Giamatti, and there really isn't much more I can say about that. I did agree to review it. It is under review. We do spend some time discussing it. But it's not I think appropriate for me to say any more."

While on the lifetime banned list, Rose is ineligible for the Hall of Fame ballot. The Hall's board of directors decided unanimously in February 2001 that anyone on the permanently ineligible list couldn't appear on the BBWAA ballot.

Rose's final year of eligibility in the writers' vote would have been 2006. Jane Forbes Clark, the Hall's chairman, has left open the possibility that the Hall would allow Rose a spot on the BBWAA should he gain reinstatement.


http://www.williamsondailynews.com/pages/full_story/push?article-In+baseball%E2%80%99s+steroids+era-+Pete+Rose+doesn%E2%80%99t+seem+to+be+getting+a+fa ir+shake-%20&id=2968366-In+baseball%E2%80%99s+steroids+era-+Pete+Rose+doesn%E2%80%99t+seem+to+be+getting+a+fa ir+shake-&instance=secondary_sports_left_column


by Jeffrey Reynolds Sports Editor

From 1919 to 1987, Major League Baseball’s biggest scandal had been the 1919 “Black Sox affair” where members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox were found guilty by baseball of throwing the 1919 World Series to help gamblers insure their winnings.

The biggest controversy of that scandal saw legendary “Shoeless” Joe Jackson of the White Sox sent into banishment by baseball along with the other White Sox members who were found guilty and banished from the game for life. The controversy stemmed from the fact that no direct evidence linked Jackson to the affair, yet Jackson was deemed guilty anyway and given baseball’s biggest penalty.

Then, sixty-eight years later, baseball pursued allegations that Pete Rose, manager of the Cincinnati Reds and baseball’s all-time career hits leader, had bet on baseball, including his own Reds team.

While baseball itself indicated that no evidence at the time showed that Rose bet on the Reds, the evidence they had was enough that they asked Rose to accept voluntary lifetime banishment from the game with the understanding that baseball would allow him at some point to apply for re-admission. Rose, wishing to avoid harsher provisions that would not have allowed him a way back in to the game, signed the agreement.

Rose applied for re-admission a decade later in 1997. Being led to believe MLB was tying his truthfulness into the approval of the application, Rose admitted several years later to indeed betting on baseball, but not on the Reds.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig “tabled” Rose’s application, taking a hard line on Rose’s sins against the game.

Fast forward to 2003 and former player Jose Canseco opens baseball’s next scandal as he documents steroids abuse by major players of the game. Many of baseball’s biggest record-breaking stars are linked to the use of performance enhancing drugs. Numerous records, including the single season and career home run records have been tainted. But no lifetime banishments have been handed down by Selig, No records have been expunged or marked by asterisks.

Some of baseball’s biggest stars have been suspended for testing positive for using such drugs and some have even lied to Congress. But no lifetime bans as players have been allowed to apologize for their transgressions.

Which was more detrimental to baseball. Jackson and Rose’s never definitively proved betting or taking performance enhancers to lay claim to baseball’s records? And why is Rose’s admission and apology not taken with forgiveness and A-Rod’s and Manny’s are?

If baseball can accept back into it’s fold those who have scarred the games records, it needs to let Rose back in as well.

That’s how I see it from the other side of the desk. We’ll revisit this issue again.

hebroncougar
07-16-2009, 08:59 PM
Which was more detrimental to baseball. Jackson and Rose’s never definitively proved betting or taking performance enhancers to lay claim to baseball’s records? And why is Rose’s admission and apology not taken with forgiveness and A-Rod’s and Manny’s are?

If baseball can accept back into it’s fold those who have scarred the games records, it needs to let Rose back in as well.

That’s how I see it from the other side of the desk. We’ll revisit this issue again.

How is Rose's definitely not proven, when he admitted it? It's simple, when you BET on baseball, you KNOW the punishment before you do the crime. Same for steroids..........it's a 50 game suspension, then 100 games, then lifetime. Betting is one strike and you're out, steroids are three strikes and you're out. I liked Rose as much as the next guy, but he made his own bed, now he gets to sleep in it. I'd honestly be shocked if he ever got in.

Raisor
07-16-2009, 09:01 PM
Wait, Pete Rose bet on baseball?? When was this discovered?! Will this affect his Hall of Fame chances?

GAC
07-16-2009, 09:21 PM
Selig is a coward. Instead of continually saying you're "reviewing" the Rose appeal, and avoiding the question, come out and honestly answer the question. Geez!

Of course knowing Selig, maybe it is taking him this long to review it.

redsfan4445
07-16-2009, 09:32 PM
if something i do at work took me 12 years to review it, I think i know I would be fired by now!!

flyer85
07-16-2009, 09:40 PM
someone must be a slow reader

savafan
07-16-2009, 11:05 PM
We all know Rose bet on baseball and the Reds. I think the sad part is that its widely assumed that Rose would have been reinstated after a year by Giammatti, but the commish's death ended the agreement Rose thought he had made with baseball.

Raisor
07-16-2009, 11:20 PM
, but the commish's death ended the agreement Rose thought he had made with baseball.

You mean the agreement where he agreed to a LIFETIME ban?

savafan
07-16-2009, 11:28 PM
You mean the agreement where he agreed to a LIFETIME ban?

The one where he agreed to a lifetime ban with the possibility of reinstatement after one year. Why put that possibility in the agreement if it wasn't likely to be given?

cincrazy
07-16-2009, 11:50 PM
He should be in the Hall. I wouldn't honor him, I wouldn't invite him to the ceremonies and induct him with all of the other members, but I would induct him into the Hall of Fame. On his plaque, lead it off with the betting on games and go from there.

I don't feel sorry for Pete. If he never gets in, I won't shed any tears. But I think it's absurd to keep him out of the Hall, as if the Hall is full of players who had great morals.

TheNext44
07-16-2009, 11:54 PM
The one where he agreed to a lifetime ban with the possibility of reinstatement after one year. Why put that possibility in the agreement if it wasn't likely to be given?

No way to know what Giammatti would have done, but according many inside accounts, supposedly Rose only agreed to that punishment because he was given an wink an nod that he would be re-instated after one year.

Giammatti might have gone back on his word, but Vincent was even a bigger Rose hater than Giammatti, and was mad that Giammatti even included that option, so there was no way he ever was going to re-instate Rose. Now Selig is just too much of a coward to actually act on anything that might be controversial.

15fan
07-16-2009, 11:55 PM
Selig is a coward. Instead of continually saying you're "reviewing" the Rose appeal, and avoiding the question, come out and honestly answer the question. Geez!

Of course knowing Selig, maybe it is taking him this long to review it.

Never ever forget that deep down, at his very core, Bud Selig is a car salesman.

mbgrayson
07-17-2009, 01:03 AM
You mean the agreement where he agreed to a LIFETIME ban?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose#cite_note-8):

On August 24, 1989, Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent place on baseball’s ineligible list. Rose accepted that there was a factual reason for the ban; in return, Major League Baseball agreed to make no formal finding with regard to the gambling allegations. According to baseball's rules, Rose could apply for reinstatement in one year.

The actual agreement is online HERE (http://baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/agreement.html).

At the press conference announcing the agreement, the Commissioner was asked if he believed that Rose bet on baseball. Giamatti said that in the absence of a hearing, and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he had to conclude that Rose did bet on baseball.

Here you have the sitting Commissioner saying that Rose did bet on baseball, right after signing an agreement that says "the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game."

What did Rose get out of the Agreement if not the possibility that he could be reinstated? He got the maximum penalty. He had to give up the game he clearly loved. Then, in violation of the Agreement, the Commissioner states at a press conference that Rose bet on baseball. Eight days later Giamatti died, and Rose is stuck with an Agreement placing him at the mercy of the later commissioners.

The reinstatement clause states:
"Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement."

Rose had solid legal representation throughout the ordeal. Rueban Katz got a civil suit filed a Cincinnati for Rose, and put real pressure on MLB. The only way I can reconcile Rose reaching this agreement is if he thought he might get reinstated.

Or maybe Rose didn't want a hearing on the allegations where he would have to testify, perhaps under oath, about whether he bet on baseball and the Reds.

The other thing that happened was that baseball changed the rules on Hall of Fame eligibilty right AFTER Rose reached this Agreement. Until that time, there had been no rule prohibiting a player on the permanently inelgible list from being voted into the Hall of Fame. This was put in place right after the Agreement was signed.

In any even, it seems like MLB behaved unfairly toward Rose in three ways. One, Giamatti publically announced that Rose had bet on baseball after agreeing to make no determination in that regard. Two, the Hall of Fame Rules were changed after the Agreement. Three, later commissioners have sat on Rose's reinstatement requests for far too long, without any public reply. They do this while using Rose to boost the All Century team in 1999, but deny the Reds the right to use Rose on the 25th anniversary of the Big Red Machine or the closing of Riverfront or the opening of GABP.

Don't get me wrong: Rose is a compulsive gambler, a liar, and has many other moral failings. He is not alone in that camp (read a biography or two about Ty Cobb). Rose knew gambling on baseball was wrong, he knew about the Black Sox scandal from 1919, and the threat gambling represents to the integrity of the game. He deserves what has happened to him.

I just expect a little more honor from the MLB administration than has been given Rose. The ends do not justify the means, and I would have thought MLB would have behaved better.

My solution is this: deny Rose's reinstatement petition, but change back the rule prohibiting players on the permanently ineligible list from HOF consideration. I expect the writers (and now the HOF veterans themselves since Rose's eligibility time has lapsed) will not let Pete in the Hall too easily.

Matt700wlw
07-17-2009, 01:05 AM
There must be a lot of fine print....

Or...it's sitting in a desk drawer collecting dust...

Or...Bud is waiting until just before he hangs it up to reinstate him so he goes out as the guy who let Pete get the OPPORTUNITY at the induction he deserves...

Or.....why is this news?

westofyou
07-17-2009, 01:37 AM
Or.....why is this news?

Because Cincinnati still cares, can't let go, looks backwards too much, respects their heroes, cares too much, is an easy mark on this subject or the plain fact that every family has skeletons.

Matt700wlw
07-17-2009, 01:46 AM
I'm out of the loop now....why did this even come up?

dougdirt
07-17-2009, 01:48 AM
if something i do at work took me 12 years to review it, I think i know I would be fired by now!!

Not if that job was basically to throw a piece of paper away.

TheNext44
07-17-2009, 01:59 AM
The other thing that happened was that baseball changed the rules on Hall of Fame eligibilty right AFTER Rose reached this Agreement. Until that time, there had been no rule prohibiting a player on the permanently inelgible list from being voted into the Hall of Fame. This was put in place right after the Agreement was signed.


Even my Uncle from NY, who's a lifelong Yankee fan and hates Pete Rose, thought this was total bull. It's basically saying that they don't trust the writers to do the right thing.

Matt700wlw
07-17-2009, 02:09 AM
Even my Uncle from NY, who's a lifelong Yankee fan and hates Pete Rose, thought this was total bull. It's basically saying that they don't trust the writers to do the right thing.

Who can trust baseball to do the right thing anymore? They turned their backs on the PED issue forever because it was making them PROFIT.

Until recentely, PEDs weren't an issue, even though many of them were illegal

WVRedsFan
07-17-2009, 02:32 AM
Does Pete belong in the Hall more than Barry Bonds? Interesting question. Rose bet on baseball, but no one could say he ever threw a game, right? Bonds "cheated" because he used performance enhancing drugs, right? Who is more worthy? I'd vote for Pete 100times before I'd vote for Barry. Both had very serious human flaws. It bothers me.

Roy Tucker
07-17-2009, 09:10 AM
I think 12 years is probably long enough to review something. My daughter graduated from high school this year. She was going into 1st grade when Bud started looking at it.

I don't care what it is, but Selig needs to come to a conclusion on it. It's really pretty darn silly.

westofyou
07-17-2009, 11:11 AM
I'm out of the loop now....why did this even come up?

West Virginia paper, Reds fan perhaps wrote it?




I'd vote for Pete 100times before I'd vote for Barry.

No surprise here, reds fans give Pete a pass as much as Giants fans gave Barry a pass.

Pete broke the rule on the wall though, he gets no pass from me.

dfs
07-17-2009, 11:49 AM
You mean the agreement where he agreed to a LIFETIME ban?

The same type of "lifetime ban" that Bowie Kuhn slapped on both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle for taking a casino greeter job in 1983 only to have Peter Ueberroth turn over in 1985?

or the kind of banned for life that Fay Vincent put on George STeinbrenner in 1990 after he paid a small-time gambler, $40,000? Of course King George was reinstated in 1993.

Which kind of lifetime ban do you think Rose agreed to? One with the chance to be reinstated after a year. He's done more than his time.

I think if Rose had come clean and shown contrition earlier, he would already be reinstated. The timing of this particular bit of publicity is interesting precisely because it doesn't seem to be coming from Rose, but from the commissioners office.

traderumor
07-17-2009, 12:02 PM
someone must be a slow readerHas it been established that Bud can read?

BrooklynRedz
07-17-2009, 12:03 PM
A reporter posed a question during an open Q&A. I really don't see anything more to this than circumstance.

I'd like to see Pete reinstated for selfish reasons, understanding and admitting my own hypocrisy. He's a great 'character' and he'd make fantastic theater. Considering I spend at least 12 hours a day immersed in said theater, Pete would make for a nice diversion.

That said, I can appreciate those who do not want him reinstated.

Eric_the_Red
07-17-2009, 12:16 PM
If Pete is reinstated, does it send a message that it's okay to bet on baseball, because you will be allowed back in eventually? Or do you think the 12 years is enough of a punishment to deter future violations?

Interesting comparison between Bonds & Rose. I think a major difference is that Pete knew what the rules and punishment was before he decided that he was bigger than the game. Bonds did something that was more or less accepted at the time. I have no sympathy for those caught doing PEDs now with the testing, and if someone were dumb enough to get 3 strikes, then I don't think they should ever be reinstated.

Hoosier Red
07-17-2009, 12:24 PM
Selig is a coward. Instead of continually saying you're "reviewing" the Rose appeal, and avoiding the question, come out and honestly answer the question. Geez!

Of course knowing Selig, maybe it is taking him this long to review it.

I actually think Bud is doing Rose a favor. If Bud definitively rules that Rose's request is denied. It will be harder for the next commissioner(assuming there is a next commissioner) to overturn the precedent. Not in a legal sense, but certainly the next commissioner would be going out on a bigger limb to essentially overturn what Bud said.
What Selig is essentially doing is saying, "I won't let you in but I don't want the next guy burdened with my decision. If he lets you in so be it."

I'm not sure its not the best way to handle what you hope is a unique case.

BrooklynRedz
07-17-2009, 12:33 PM
If Pete is reinstated, does it send a message that it's okay to bet on baseball, because you will be allowed back in eventually? Or do you think the 12 years is enough of a punishment to deter future violations?


The punishment (let alone the severity) has always been a poor deterrent for any 'crime' because the offender will have already convinced him/herself that they will not be caught.

Regardless of Pete's ultimate baseball fate (I think we all have a pretty good sense it is not promising), any baseball player can wager on or against themselves anonymously through any number of online betting sites using nothing more than a VISA gift card purchased at a mall kiosk. Using the reinstatement of Pete as the last finger in the gambling dam is a canard.

Jpup
07-17-2009, 12:34 PM
Bud Selig is a coward.

savafan
07-17-2009, 01:28 PM
Interesting comparison between Bonds & Rose. I think a major difference is that Pete knew what the rules and punishment was before he decided that he was bigger than the game. Bonds did something that was more or less accepted at the time. I have no sympathy for those caught doing PEDs now with the testing, and if someone were dumb enough to get 3 strikes, then I don't think they should ever be reinstated.

Yet gambling isn't illegal in this country, while steroids are.

westofyou
07-17-2009, 01:32 PM
Yet gambling isn't illegal in this country, while steroids are.

It's illegal in MLB.

It's the most obvious rule that isn't in-between the lines.

The lengths that Reds fans take to justify the blatent rule breaking never fail to amaze me.

savafan
07-17-2009, 01:42 PM
It's illegal in MLB.

It's the most obvious rule that isn't in-between the lines.

The lengths that Reds fans take to justify the blatent rule breaking never fail to amaze me.

I'm not justifying it, I'm bemoaning the fact that the punishment for a federal crime is less than a nationally legal activity. If the punishments were the same, I'd have no problem with it, but the message it sends otherwise is rather goofy.

Hoosier Red
07-17-2009, 02:59 PM
You mean the message of "We don't know if this game is on the up and up because the manager may or may not be gambling/saving his bullpen for tomorrow when he gambles" isn't bad enough?

Seriously, how is it hard to understand that anything that can cause the fans to believe that the game is fixed and/or everyone is not giving his all, is far more damaging than any drug that can ingested.

Baseball's survived the Drug scandals of the 70's and 80's a whole lot easier than it survived the Black Sox. Purchasing Cocaine's a federal crime too.

redsbuckeye
07-17-2009, 03:20 PM
I've never liked it when rules are pointed at like a deity that deserves absolute respect. Rules can just as easily be fallable as the people breaking them. Yes Pete knew what he was potentially getting himself in to and he got caught and got the punishment the rule gave him. But that doesn't necessarily mean the rule is good for the game. There are bad rules, after all.

The blanket gambling rule here was a reaction to a situation that was horrific for baseball but it doesn't take in to account how much actual damage was done to the game. Does a baseball person betting on a game he has no actual involvement in (not talking Pete here) inflict such severe damage to the game that the person deserves total banishment? Does that person inflict more damage to the game than a PED user? Let's look at how the game was hurt instead of just feebly pointing at the rules without any critical thinking.

Now, that being said, a case could certainly be made against Pete that he did damage the game enough to merit total banishment from baseball for life. On that ground, I have no issue with never seeing him reinstated.

Chip R
07-17-2009, 03:31 PM
I'm prety sure that most Reds fans wouldn't give a crap about Pete Rose if he'd played for the Cubs or Dodgers or any other team besides the Reds.

BrooklynRedz
07-17-2009, 03:50 PM
I'm prety sure that most Reds fans wouldn't give a crap about Pete Rose if he'd played for the Cubs or Dodgers or any other team besides the Reds.

And those same fans wouldn't give a crap about the Reds if they played in Chicago or LA. Nature of the beast.

westofyou
07-17-2009, 04:09 PM
I've never liked it when rules are pointed at like a deity that deserves absolute respect.

Once you turn a blind eye to players having a finacial stake in the game that doesn't constitute itself as salary then you have no game.

redsbuckeye
07-17-2009, 04:35 PM
Once you turn a blind eye to players having a finacial stake in the game that doesn't constitute itself as salary then you have no game.

Like they don't already. And I didn't suggest to turn a blind eye either.

I'm saying people need to think critically and apply logic instead of relying on appeals to authority.

westofyou
07-17-2009, 04:59 PM
Like they don't already. And I didn't suggest to turn a blind eye either.

I'm saying people need to think critically and apply logic instead of relying on appeals to authority.

I am using logic, and I believe I'm thinking critically, but thanks for doubting.

Throw the name Pete Rose in the mix and see a whole bunch of local Cincinnati folks doing the opposite, it'slike the buzzards returning to Hinkley, I can set my watch to it.

redsbuckeye
07-17-2009, 05:16 PM
I am using logic, and I believe I'm thinking critically, but thanks for doubting.

When you use the rule as a fiat power without justifying why the rule is in place or ponder the underlying philosophy of the rule and just wield it as a blunt instrument for your argument then you are not using logic or thinking critically.

I wasn't suggesting you, specifically, were doing this, it's just something I see every time the topic of Pete Rose rears its ugly head.


Throw the name Pete Rose in the mix and see a whole bunch of local Cincinnati folks doing the opposite, it'slike the buzzards returning to Hinkley, I can set my watch to it.

Certainly both sides of the argument are guilty of a lack of good reasoning. However, I'll quote myself:


Now, that being said, a case could certainly be made against Pete that he did damage the game enough to merit total banishment from baseball for life. On that ground, I have no issue with never seeing him reinstated.

I'm not defending Pete, merely critiquing the people who refuse to question the rules.

westofyou
07-17-2009, 05:22 PM
I'm not defending Pete, merely critiquing the people who refuse to question the rules.

Why should I question the rule?

Just because it's a rule? I'm hardly a step in line guy nor have I ever been.

I think (and know) that gambling is bad for the game, no amount of questioning that rule will make me think otherwise. I've actually thought and explored the issue about this beyond Pete Rose and still come to the same conclusion that gambling almost killed the game once and is a cancer that shoudl be removed as soon as it's discovered.

redsbuckeye
07-17-2009, 05:30 PM
Why should I question the rule?

Just because it's a rule? I'm hardly a step in line guy nor have I ever been.

I think (and know) that gambling is bad for the game, no amount of questioning that rule will make me think otherwise. I've actually thought and explored the issue about this beyond Pete Rose and still come to the same conclusion that gambling almost killed the game once and is a cancer that shoudl be removed as soon as it's discovered.

Ok so you have considered it, and came to a conclusion in support of it. Fair enough.

I disagree that all gambling is bad for the game. I will only object when a conflict of interest is present as was the case with Pete Rose. Pete is guilty of hurting the game, that much we are in agreement upon.

Eric_the_Red
07-17-2009, 05:46 PM
I disagree that all gambling is bad for the game.

Can you give any example when somebody involved in the game the game's outcome betting on the sport is good?

GAC
07-17-2009, 05:57 PM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose#cite_note-8):


The actual agreement is online HERE (http://baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/agreement.html).

At the press conference announcing the agreement, the Commissioner was asked if he believed that Rose bet on baseball. Giamatti said that in the absence of a hearing, and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he had to conclude that Rose did bet on baseball.

Here you have the sitting Commissioner saying that Rose did bet on baseball, right after signing an agreement that says "the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game."

What did Rose get out of the Agreement if not the possibility that he could be reinstated? He got the maximum penalty. He had to give up the game he clearly loved. Then, in violation of the Agreement, the Commissioner states at a press conference that Rose bet on baseball. Eight days later Giamatti died, and Rose is stuck with an Agreement placing him at the mercy of the later commissioners.

The reinstatement clause states:
"Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement."

Rose had solid legal representation throughout the ordeal. Rueban Katz got a civil suit filed a Cincinnati for Rose, and put real pressure on MLB. The only way I can reconcile Rose reaching this agreement is if he thought he might get reinstated.

Or maybe Rose didn't want a hearing on the allegations where he would have to testify, perhaps under oath, about whether he bet on baseball and the Reds.

The other thing that happened was that baseball changed the rules on Hall of Fame eligibilty right AFTER Rose reached this Agreement. Until that time, there had been no rule prohibiting a player on the permanently inelgible list from being voted into the Hall of Fame. This was put in place right after the Agreement was signed.

In any even, it seems like MLB behaved unfairly toward Rose in three ways. One, Giamatti publically announced that Rose had bet on baseball after agreeing to make no determination in that regard. Two, the Hall of Fame Rules were changed after the Agreement. Three, later commissioners have sat on Rose's reinstatement requests for far too long, without any public reply. They do this while using Rose to boost the All Century team in 1999, but deny the Reds the right to use Rose on the 25th anniversary of the Big Red Machine or the closing of Riverfront or the opening of GABP.

Don't get me wrong: Rose is a compulsive gambler, a liar, and has many other moral failings. He is not alone in that camp (read a biography or two about Ty Cobb). Rose knew gambling on baseball was wrong, he knew about the Black Sox scandal from 1919, and the threat gambling represents to the integrity of the game. He deserves what has happened to him.

I just expect a little more honor from the MLB administration than has been given Rose. The ends do not justify the means, and I would have thought MLB would have behaved better.

My solution is this: deny Rose's reinstatement petition, but change back the rule prohibiting players on the permanently ineligible list from HOF consideration. I expect the writers (and now the HOF veterans themselves since Rose's eligibility time has lapsed) will not let Pete in the Hall too easily.

Very good post.

redsbuckeye
07-17-2009, 06:01 PM
Can you give any example when somebody involved in the game the game's outcome betting on the sport is good?
Well first I didn't say it was good. I don't think gambling is inherently good or bad. Second, your situation is a conflict of interest which I did say Pete was a part of and was problematic.

I guess I'm asking how is it bad when somebody who isn't involved in the outcome of the game bets on the game?

westofyou
07-17-2009, 06:06 PM
Well first I didn't say it was good. I don't think gambling is inherently good or bad. Second, your situation is a conflict of interest which I did say Pete was a part of and was problematic.

I guess I'm asking how is it bad when somebody who isn't involved in the outcome of the game bets on the game?

The issue is those involved, the issue is the disregard of this rule that is on the wall in every clubhouse, the wall that Pete Rose walked by over 20 thousand times.

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rule21.html

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

GAC
07-17-2009, 06:34 PM
No surprise here, reds fans give Pete a pass as much as Giants fans gave Barry a pass.....Pete broke the rule on the wall though, he gets no pass from me.

MLB is giving Bonds a pass. ;)

But I don't think Red fans, in general, are giving Rose a pass (per say). Here in Reds country, the subject matter of Pete Rose has been beaten to death and discussed ad nauseam for many years. And a vast majority, like myself - and there probably isn't a bigger Pete Rose fan on this board then me - who grew up idolizing the guy, believe he should never be allowed back into the game in any role because of his rule breaking. So that is not giving the guy a pass.

But what has bothered me, and many others, and it was mentioned earlier, was that while he agreed to the voluntary ban from baseball - that did not include a ban from the HOF. That rule was changed after-the-fact, and specifically done so solely for Pete Rose. IMO, that was pretty shoddy and under-handed by MLB.

The guy has served plenty of time in "exile" as punishment for what he did when it comes to HOF consideration. He gave his all for the game and on that playing field. He is one of the greatest players to have played the game. He belongs in the HOF next to all those other SOBs.

In our society, we parole hardened criminals, even murderers, after paying their "debt" to society. Yet not a guy like Rose. What he did is somehow unforgiveable. And even if he is allowed into the HOF, it's not like what he did (gambling) is ever going to be forgotten. He will always be remembered for that, and have to carry that mantle of shame over that certain aspect of his life. But as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see that other aspect of his life, in which he did far more FOR the game, then he did to hurt or tarnish it, receive some of that recognition while he is still alive, and can enjoy it. Enough is enough IMO.

savafan
07-17-2009, 06:35 PM
So, since we can't argue that Rose was ignorant of the rule, wasn't his acceptance of the lifetime ban, in essence, an admission of guilt, albeit not directly?

RFS62
07-17-2009, 08:49 PM
The real punishment for Pete isn't the Hall of Fame. It's banishment from employment in baseball. That cost him many millions.

And when he signed the agreement, it was the least of his worries. He was facing charges which landed him in jail.

Pete is all over the Hall of Fame, as well he should be. But he doesn't have a plaque. I can't imagine anyone who knows anything at all about baseball who doesn't know how great a player Pete was in his day. He doesn't need a plaque for that.

He flaunted the most sacrosanct rule in the game. His only regret was that he was caught. He lied for years about it, then cashed in on the same lie with his book.

Sorry Pete. I loved you when you played. You made your bed, now you get to sleep in it.