Originally Posted by Raisor
You mean the agreement where he agreed to a LIFETIME ban?
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
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.