Really Good Pete Rose Article

[savafan]

I remember the day the ban was announced well--it was one of my most disappointing as a fan. One thing that seems to be overlooked these days was that the possibility of future reinstatement was front and center. The arguments that this is case-closed because the rules say this is permanent ignore the reality of the ban's context.

I think at the time everyone took it for granted that Pete would likely sit out a year and that Giamatti would then reinstate him, but Giamatti's death and Fay Vincent's belief that Rose was to blame seemed to put an end to that.

[marcshoe]

I think at the time everyone took it for granted that Pete would likely sit out a year and that Giamatti would then reinstate him, but Giamatti's death and Fay Vincent's belief that Rose was to blame seemed to put an end to that.

Yes. Who knows, it may have--although Giamatti's heavy smoking likely contributed as well. His son blames Pete too, though, and he gets to talk to Leno, Letterman, and those guys.

[mbgrayson]

There is a difference between making no formal finding and saying it didn't happen. And as we now know, without any question, it DID happen. Anyone who paid any attention in the late 80's knew.

And not only did baseball agree not to make a formal finding in Rose's case (which the commissioner essentially violated immediately by releasing the Dowd Report and then giving a press statement indicating his belief in Rose's guilt), there were never any allegations of game fixing against Pete.

In Cobb's case, there were such allegations, and he only escaped punishment because "Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings."

If Rose could have gotten away with gambling by simply not having his scumbag friends appear at a hearing, Pete might still be in the game today. On the flip side, what would have happened if Dowd had investigated the allegations against Ty Cobb?

The truth is that Cobb bought, coerced, or intimidated his way out of trouble. Rose couldn't weasel his way out. Other than that, what Cobb did was just as serious.

One final note: I have to point out that you didn't bother to respond to the key statement I made above. McGwire's use of steroids can easily fall under MLB Rule 21 too. The use of seroids is clearly contrary to the best interest of baseball, and look again at the final part of the rule that "is posted in every MLB clubhouse."

Nothing herein contained shall be construed as
exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices
or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all
other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best
interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such
penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the
particular case may warrant.

Again, I would submit that there is plenty of fault and over-zealousness on MLB's behalf too. While the drug addicts and various other felons are allowed in the game, and Cobb sits ensconsed in the Hall, Pete remains kicked out of both. Pete has been punished enough by his 22 year ban from baseball and the HOF.

[dougdirt]

And not only did baseball agree not to make a formal finding in Rose's case (which the commissioner essentially violated immediately by releasing the Dowd Report and then giving a press statement indicating his belief in Rose's guilt), there were never any allegations of game fixing against Pete.

In Cobb's case, there were such allegations, and he only escaped punishment because "Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings."

If Rose could have gotten away with gambling by simply not having his scumbag friends appear at a hearing, Pete might still be in the game today. On the flip side, what would have happened if Dowd had investigated the allegations against Ty Cobb?

The truth is that Cobb bought, coerced, or intimidated his way out of trouble. Rose couldn't weasel his way out. Other than that, what Cobb did was just as serious.

One final note: I have to point out that you didn't bother to respond to the key statement I made above. McGwire's use of steroids can easily fall under MLB Rule 21 too. The use of seroids is clearly contrary to the best interest of baseball, and look again at the final part of the rule that "is posted in every MLB clubhouse."



Again, I would submit that there is plenty of fault and over-zealousness on MLB's behalf too. While the drug addicts and various other felons are allowed in the game, and Cobb sits ensconsed in the Hall, Pete remains kicked out of both. Pete has been punished enough by his 22 year ban from baseball and the HOF.

Simply because someone else was able to get away with something doesn't mean the next guy should.

Pete doesn't deserve to be in baseball. He doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He hasn't been punished enough by his 22 year ban because the rules tell us that the punishment is permanent ineligibility. The fact that you think some of this is over-zealouness of MLB tells me all that I need to know... you and Pete seem to think that the rules shouldn't apply to him because he was a great player.

[mbgrayson]

Simply because someone else was able to get away with something doesn't mean the next guy should.

Pete doesn't deserve to be in baseball. He doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He hasn't been punished enough by his 22 year ban because the rules tell us that the punishment is permanent ineligibility. The fact that you think some of this is over-zealouness of MLB tells me all that I need to know... you and Pete seem to think that the rules shouldn't apply to him because he was a great player.

And likewise when I see you confusing the issue of Pete accepting being placed on the 'permanently ineligible to play' list with a permanent ban on HOF eligibility, I lose all the respect I had for your intellectual honesty. Surely you realize by now that these were two seperate things until the HOF changed their rules AFTER Pete reached his deal with MLB.

I NEVER EVER said that the rules shouldn't apply to Pete, I just said that they shouldn't be changed after the fact to preclude his HOF eligibility, and that other players were treated far more leniently. Please don't try to set up a straw man argument or to lump me in with Pete to enhance your argument. I strongly disagree with letting Rose back into the game, which is what he really wants, and I have agreed with you and many others that he was wrong and is deeply flawed.

[dougdirt]

And likewise when I see you confusing the issue of Pete accepting being placed on the 'permanently ineligible to play' list with a permanent ban on HOF eligibility, I lose all the respect I had for your intellectual honesty. Surely you realize by now that these were two seperate things until the HOF changed their rules AFTER Pete reached his deal with MLB.

I NEVER EVER said that the rules shouldn't apply to Pete, I just said that they shouldn't be changed after the fact to preclude his HOF eligibility, and that other players were treated far more leniently. Please don't try to set up a straw man argument or to lump me in with Pete to enhance your argument. I strongly disagree with letting Rose back into the game, which is what he really wants, and I have agreed with you and many others that he was wrong and is deeply flawed.

A private organization can't change its rules? Citing references from 80 years ago to how anyone was treated and trying to apply it to today's standards simply doesn't work. Things are drastically different.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame is a private organization and they can set up their rules how they want to. As things are right now, they don't want anyone in who is on the ineligible list.

Pete did things to get himself placed on that list.

[757690]

A private organization can't change its rules? Citing references from 80 years ago to how anyone was treated and trying to apply it to today's standards simply doesn't work. Things are drastically different.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame is a private organization and they can set up their rules how they want to. As things are right now, they don't want anyone in who is on the ineligible list.

Pete did things to get himself placed on that list.

They can change their rules however they like.

And when they do, they open themselves up for criticism. The fact that they can change the rules does not justify every time that they do. And the way that this rule was changed has had an unintended consequence of giving Rose fans something to justifiably complain about.

[dougdirt]

They can change their rules however they like.

And when they do, they open themselves up for criticism. The fact that they can change the rules does not justify every time that they do. And the way that this rule was changed has had an unintended consequence of giving Rose fans something to justifiably complain about.

The fact that Pete Rose fans still exist is shocking to me. But I am bowing out of this conversation. I should have never even gotten started on Pete. All it does is make me angry.

[savafan]

The fact that Pete Rose fans still exist is shocking to me. But I am bowing out of this conversation. I should have never even gotten started on Pete. All it does is make me angry.

I get more angry about an entire generation of ballplayers who cheated to the extent that the historical landscape of the sport and some of it's most cherished records fell to tarnished circumstances making me question the majority of seasons I watched from my teen years to the present, but so many people try to tell me that what they did isn't as bad as one guy betting on his team to win, which I'll never quite be able to grasp.

[mbgrayson]

The fact that Pete Rose fans still exist is shocking to me. But I am bowing out of this conversation. I should have never even gotten started on Pete. All it does is make me angry.

Even your farewell gesture to this conversation contains a belittling putdown....the implication is that if we think Pete deserves to be on the HOF ballot, we are "Pete Rose fans". Earlier you made the degrading remark to me that "you and Pete seem to think that the rules shouldn't apply to him..."

Well, instead of Ad hominem attacks, lets deal with facts and actual arguments on each side. I am sorry that dealing with the Pete Rose issue 'makes you angry', but you got nothing on my anger at the man.

I grew up in Dayton Ohio, idolizing Pete. I tried switch hitting in little league to copy Pete (I failed, couldn't hit left handed). I had a Pete Rose poster in my room. The times I met him and got autographs, he was professional and very kind. He was my hero. My brother favored Johnny Bench, and we always had a good natured rivalry with this. I was 15 years old when the Reds won the 1975 World Championship. The Reds '75 and '76 title runs made me love baseball, and motivated me via the 'straight A ticket program' to do well in school and life. I owe some of my success to the Reds and to Rose.

My naive fandom started changing as I grew up and as time went by. First Pete left the Reds to go for more money. I resented, but understood. Then later, when he came back home, I was thrilled. Then of course he set the all time MLB career hit record as a Red. Later, the more I learned about his gambling and other lifestyle choices (hanging around with hoods, gambling, affairs, selling autographs etc.) I became more and more disillusioned. Then, when the truth all came out, and he finally admitted to betting on baseball and the Reds, I had pretty much lost all my respect for Pete.

But, despite my dislike of the man as a person (he stands for pretty much every vice I personally loathe), I can't get by the fact that he was one hell of a basball player. He fought to win every game, and he was the fire in the belly of the Reds for many years. What other All Star outfielder would agree to change positions to 3rd base to get another good hitter (George Foster) into the lineup? I don't see that happening virtually anywhere...).

So how do I reconcile these conflicting feelings? I looked carefully at the HOF and it's history and purpose, at what happened in Rose's case, at how other cases of baseball misconduct have been handled, and made up my mind that Pete should not manage or coach in the game again, but should not be automatically denied his appearance on the HOF ballot. The writers may choose to punish him further, and I think this is likely as more people that never saw him play take over. But he should be eligible for the HOF.

So please, don't write off my opinion as simply being a lackey, a fan, or an apologist for Peter Edward Rose. It is much deeper and more complex than that....

[dougdirt]

Even your farewell gesture to this conversation contains a belittling putdown....the implication is that if we think Pete deserves to be on the HOF ballot, we are "Pete Rose fans"

No. This is what you said

The fact that they can change the rules does not justify every time that they do. And the way that this rule was changed has had an unintended consequence of giving Rose fans something to justifiably complain about.

[mbgrayson]

No. This is what you said

Ummm, look a little closer. That quote that you attribute to me was from 757690.

[remdog]

Great series of posts mbgrayson.

Rem

[_Sir_Charles_]

Great series of posts mbgrayson.

Rem

Absolutely. mbgryson has captured my personal feelings towards this situation much better and clearer than I've ever been able to....and I've tried dozens of times.

[dougdirt]

Ummm, look a little closer. That quote that you attribute to me was from 757690.

That is true. But my point still was that I was simply replying to someone who said Pete Rose fans. Attributing to the wrong person doesn't change the point.