Pete Rose bet on baseball! And now, 15 years later he is sorry. Why should anyone care?
I grew up discussing this very controversy with my dad, a sports fanatic. It was one of the few things we could really get deep about and I loved to hear his wise and experienced opinion on the subject.
My dad's feeling (at least the last time we spoke) was that Rose should just admit, apologize and then stand on his baseball record (a very impressive record indeed) - and then in time he would rightfully be inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I naturally assumed that my dad had the right attitude and was correct. These days I just don't know.
The problem isn't that he didn't do what we asked, it was when and how he did it. I am a firm believer that we are in bondage to sin. Truly, we can not free ourselves of our compulsion to do what is wrong, especially when inherently selfish motives are involved, like greed, gluttony, and lust. These alluring sins are just too tied into the human psyche to be avoided. That is why the world is full of fat, lying, cheating, money-grubbing individuals. It applies to all of us at some point in our lives.
So it could be said that Pete Rose was just being human. Isn't he allowed to be human? Not in baseball. Baseball is our sacred sport - it stands for what it means to be an American. It is a sport of elegance, heroes, set and defined rules, gallant behavior and above all - NO FUCKING CHEATING. Why is cheating frowned on so fervently in sports, especially baseball? The Black Soxs scandal of 1919. Thanks to that scandal, Americans almost lost their beloved pastime. People lost faith in the baseball dream and their heroes and since that time the game of baseball and its leaders and rulemakers have bent over backwards to make sure the game's integrity has stayed intact and unmarred from scandal.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Very nice and effective Dawn - maybe waiting for him to die IS the answer. I still think he should get in the Hall as a player only, but not be allowed back into baseball.
There's a very interesting report from John Dowd, the man who conducted the investigation into Rose for MLB in the Washington Post here. He said there were two conditions for Rose returning to baseball: admit he lied and gambled on baseball while manager of the Reds, AND rehabilitate himself and change his life. He does not believe Rose has achieved the latter.
2 - bhw
AND rehabilitate himself and change his life
That's crazy. He was a baseball player, not a role model, to misquote Charles Barkley. What he does NOW, as a private citizen, has no bearing on his past performance on the field. That just sounds like someone who doesn't like Rose personally trying to stick it to him.
What's with baseball, anyway, that people think it's some sort of pristine activity? [George Will's baseball hard-on seems to have caught on with other people.]
Lots of assholes are in the HOF. Why not Rose, too?
3 - Eric Olsen
Because deception and gambling addiction are at the heart of this, and if he hasn't dealt with these, why would baseball reinstate him and leave itself open to him doing it all over again? He has to be reinstated to get in the Hall.
4 - Dawn
If a man as morally bankrupt as Bill Clinton can be contrite about his lying and cheating, it's the least we can expect from Pete Rose. It pains me to see a player who was so great be denied access the "Hall". Certainly if a douchebag like Ty Cobb can be in there, so should Pete Rose. But he needs to DIE first. Then all will be forgiven, not before. He should not be allowed to enjoy the rewards of his efforts in this life, when he shat upon the very livelihood that brought him those rewards.
5 - Doc
He's a vain SOB...always trying to grab the spotlight to detract from those getting inducted at the Hall of Fame..and this "confession" being timed with a book he's trying to sell. Sad!
Almost as sad as how he sets up a little booth in Cooperstown each year when the new inductees are being celebrated so he can sign stuff (for $).
Hey Dawn, If our W can lie about WMD, 9-11, his coke habit, his previous arrests and convictions, etc. why not have pete rose? Quid pro quo, buddy
Screw him...if shoeless joe ain't in, rose shouldn't expect so either.
6 - TDavid
Rose did what the people asked him to do for years: if you admit your sin, they will let you in. But he did admit it and now people are saying he wasn't sincere enough. Gimme a break! He will never satisfy his detractors and skeptics, no matter what he says or does.
The day it came out, I bought, promptly read his book, and reviewed it, and nothing in that book changed my mind about the situation.
He should be in the Hall and that will get this whole discussion off the table. As for getting back into baseball I seriously don't think that should even be an option any more.
7 - Dawn
I didn't say he shouldn't be in the hall, he should - just not while he is alive.
And I disagree, the sincerity of one's apology is as important as the apology itself. Sincerity is ALWAYS important.
8 - TDavid
And I didn't say the sincerity of his apology wasn't important, Dawn, either. I said that people are complaining that he wasn't sincere enough which is very subjective. The fact that he had the stones to apologize and admit he had lied period, says there has been some move in his position over these 14 years. Is it enough? For some, perhaps yourself, no, but for me it is. Let's put him in the Hall and stop talking about this BS.
Pete Rose doesn't tick like most people, so how are we to know if this is a scam or genuine?
Getting over 4000 hits is something only two men in the history of baseball have been able to do. Both aren't good people, but one of them is in the Hall and the other isn't. I think that says volumes about baseball, not Pete Rose.
9 - Dawn
Are we arguing in circles? No, I am sorry to inform you but his apology was on the opposite spectrum of sincere. It's what people who deal with human beings would call INSINCERE AND SELF-MOTIVATED. If he was truly apologetic, I think he would have picked a more obvious way of showing it.
And again, I must reiterate, I not only stated and LINKED TO HIS IMPRESSIVE RECORD, I said he should be in the Hall - just not until he dies. You know, like lots of other great players. He is an opportunistic jerk who abused his privilege. Why should he be rewarded for that? What kind of precedent does that set for baseball and its heroes?
10 - Eric Olsen
Obviously the issue here is priorities - I don't think anyone disputes his baseball record, although I did mention a while back I think he is overrated there as well thanks to his own self-aggrandizing efforts. But certainly his record is good enough to deserve the Hall by unanimous vote. the question is: does his other behavior override his baseball record?
11 - bhw
the question is: does his other behavior override his baseball record
Yep, that seems to be the big area of disagreement. To me, the other behavior that occurred when he was a manager and not a player shouldn't impact his status as a HOF candidate as a player. But I'm not a baseball purist, either. I don't hold athletes to standards of behavior off the field when it comes to awards for performance on the field.
If Ray Lewis is the NFL MVP, then he's the MVP, even if he hangs around with people who get into gun fights at Super Bowl festivities.
If unapologetic racists and wife beaters are in the baseball HOF, so should Rose be, even if he's really not apologetic.
Let's apply that low standard of morality equally!
12 - TDavid
I'm not "arguing" about anything here, Dawn. I thought we were having an intelligent conversation, yes?
Folks can't have it both ways. Either Rose gets in as it is and everybody can shut up with the drama, or he doesn't get in and we play on this see-saw for more years. I'm not sure baseball can add asterisks to the record like what happened with Maris 61 homeruns. Or maybe your argument is they can -- or should?
You are saying he should be let into the Hall of Fame after he dies. You said you don't believe he was sincere (what's the story with all those caps ... is it really necessary to YELL your point?). Ok, I get this, although I disagree with the "after he dies" part.
I used to think that this might be a good solution, but I don't any more because I think it means that we are going to have to keep having this discussion until he dies. At 62, and assuming he continues to be in good health, that could be 25+ more years!
At this point it doesn't really matter whether he apologized and means it or not as to his true elligibility in the Hall. Yes, I realize you concede that Rose belongs in the Hall as many others who seem frustrated like you do.
So my question is what is the point of these rants? Are they the product of venting frustration over Pete being a lying scumbag? Eric did this a week or so ago and I failed to see the point there either. More power to ya if it makes you feel good, but I'm confused by how this is a solution to the problem. I don't mean any sarcasm or malcontent towards you, here, I'm just curious what's the point?
Rose is not a hero of morality, and no athelete should be, IMO. I would think parents are far better role models than atheletes, don't you?
Ultimately the way to make this situation go away is:
1) to put Rose in the Hall OR
2) come out and make an official statement saying: "he cannot reapply until XXXX year".
The commissioner seems like he works very slowly to coming up with obvious solutions. His only other option is to continue to fumble about and say he is "investigating the situation" and meanwhile we'll all be marks for Pete's next publicity campaign.
If they put Rose in the Hall now, as 90%+ fans agree is where he should be based solely upon his records on the field, then we wouldn't have to listen to 14+ years more of this seemingly endless banter about his character flaws, of which there are many.
13 - Dawn
TDavid,
Your attitude is quite snotty, so you can take your Pete Rose - "I love cheaters" attitude and stick it.
How's that for my argument? Sincerity is always important, and I sincerely think your opinion on this matter SUCKS. (in all caps too)
14 - TDavid
Dawn, or anybody else here - please just point to one place where I ever said "I love cheaters"? It's quite the opposite actually.
bhw gets it in #11. If I'm not getting through then piggyback off his (her?) point.
It's a fairly common stance when it comes to Pete Rose to say he should be in the Hall but conditionally so. Was Ty Cobb put in the Hall conditionally?
Those that get angry about him as a person usually vent on his morality and ethics issues to make their claim against him as a player, but when put up against a wall they more often than not agree that he still belongs in the Hall based upon his accomplishments.
What I challenge is when these folks just want to add an asterisk or make some sort of special addendum to Pete's case. I'm curious why when this would certainly show hypocrisy by baseball?
Much the way allowing (indian) casinos to advertise all over the stadiums. If they are so hell bent against gambling for players, why accept money from casinos period?
And yes, I do realize that it's ok for the fans to gamble on the game (although sportsbetting in indian casinos isn't allowed where we are at, which seems odd to say the least). But if these players work every day in a place with gambling is in their face but are told they can't ever gamble or they'll be banished forever, does that seem like maybe a wee bit contradictory?
I've already stated several times that Pete is not a good guy, and that I do not like what he has done off the field, nor do I like him as a person (so please, again, where do you get "I love cheaters" out of this?), but neither was Ty Cobb. He's in the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Shame.
Stealing signs, scuffing the ball, corking bats, juicing on roids, there are cheating things in the history of the game that run far deeper than Pete Rose as a manager betting on his team to win. If there was a shred of proof that he ever threw a game or took part in throwing one, I'd turn on his cause in a millisecond and say he never should be put in the Hall, regardless of his accomplishments on the field as a player.
I understand the integrity of the game must be preserved lest it become wrestling, but there are so many integrity issues in the game historically, that Pete's case just doesn't pass baseball's own smell test for good and bad for the game.
Now, I do like how Pete Rose played the game of baseball. He took no prisoners, he played to win, and he represented the crowd of not so talented, but determined atheletes. The people who may never make it to the major leagues because of size, natural skills, or some other silly thing that scouts use to pass over.
Today, some of these atheletes are super talented but a bit too lazy IMO. They don't run out routine grounders (errors could be made and they could be safe), they don't seem to have as much fun playing the game. Part of the reason to go to a game is to see the game played by people who want to win, not who want to not get hurt. I can see not being stupid, but there is so much emphasis put on that fear of a career ending injury that there play is at 75% when the fans are paying 150%.
I work hard for my money as I know many others do, and paying top dollar to watch people play the game like Pete Rose did is more enjoyable than watching -- to use your words -- 'snotty attitudes' like PAY-ROD in Texas play.
I was sincere when I said the following, and I'll repeat one last time in a final attempt to keep this discussion on topic: I don't mean any sarcasm or malcontent towards you, here, I'm just curious what's the point?