OT: Pete Rose still barred from baseball

Submitted by ChalmersE on December 14th, 2015 at 1:31 PM

Baseball Commisioner Manfred issued his decision today. It seems well-written and well-reasoned. Interestingly, while he's barring Rose from any position in MLB, it does seem to me that Manfred's inviting the HOF to allow him to be voted upon. Here's a link to the press release and decision: http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/8/4/6/1...t_u35dqem0.pdf

Comments

FauxMo

December 14th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another - as I'm not a Pete Rose fan per se, or even a huge MLB fan - but it seems to me that his punishment has gone much too far. If "doing things that are bad for the sport" disqualifies someone in perpetuity from associating with the sport, no major professional sport will have many associates left soon. I know gambling on one's own team is seen by some as terrible, but I don't know how it is any worse for the integrity of a sport than, say, taking steroids throughout one's entire career, taking a year off, then coming back to accolades from the same league...

NittanyFan

December 14th, 2015 at 1:48 PM ^

And I don't think Rose has done that.  Not even close, IMO.

He's still betting on baseball.  Which may be perfectly legal as a private citizen (presuming he's doing it in Vegas/on-line and not with Bookies).  But he hasn't really made a "strong good-faith effort" to TANGIBLY SHOW he is willing to change his ways.

Not insignificantlly, Rose was less than forthright at first when talking to Manfred about his current gambling activities.

NittanyFan

December 14th, 2015 at 2:48 PM ^

Penn State --- and by "Penn State" I mean the post-November 2011 University leadership --- (1) self-commissioned the Freeh Report, (2) allowed it to be released publicly (as opposed to keeping it internal), (3) accepted its conclusions, (4) has implemented ~95% of the Report's recommendations, and (5) isn't involved in suing the NCAA or such.

I understand people who will say "Penn State didn't deserve parole, no matter what."

But all the above at least showed some "good-faith effort" to improve things.

"Good-faith effort" to improve will increase the odds on one getting parole.

Pete Rose --- he's still not making that "good-faith effort", IMO.

That's all I'll say, my last' post here --- I'm not going further on a PSU tangent.  But I did give you an up-vote.  :-)

xtramelanin

December 14th, 2015 at 8:11 PM ^

would apply to any state agency.   they also were hoping to get some cover for the civil suits that were brewing and the NCAA sanctions that were coming down the pike.  

a decade or more of turning a blind eye to horrid molestation is not cleaned up by a report and its mandatory disclosure.   if only PSU had been so forthcoming to protect those poor children.  

MGoGrendel

December 14th, 2015 at 3:28 PM ^

I like Barry Bonds, the baseball player, too.  I also like players with a different reputation, like Alan Trammell and Greg Maddux.  My take is that there is a lot of talent behind a helluva lot of hard work with guys that stay in the game a long time.

That said, I'm not a fan of Rose, the man outside of baseball.  Not sure if voters will see him differently as a player and a man on the street.  I don't see him sliding in safe into the HOF.

rob f

December 15th, 2015 at 1:28 AM ^

a liar, Mr Hustle, a gambling addict, a fierce competitor, a greedy bastard, his career occurred primarily in Ohio and his fans were largely also OSU fans, a mediocre fielder, the all-time hits leader, and he blatantly broke the rules and LIED over and over and over again about it.

My MUCH BIGGER question is this:  why are they keeping Alan Trammell out of Baseball's HOF???  He has absolutely none of Rose's baggage and dirty laundry, was a fine hitter and much better defensively.  He's a credit to the game of baseball in every sense of the word, yet he hasn't been close to being elected. 

Anyone looking to right a wrong should be howling in protest that Tram isn't in Cooperstown!

 

FauxMo

December 14th, 2015 at 1:49 PM ^

Sure, but in the ensuing 26 years, the MLB has proven itself to be chock full of folks cheating in all sorts of different ways. Pete hardly seems to be the worst of the bunch.

 

And FYI, Giamatti gave Rose the right to appeal the ban once a year after 10 years. So he is doing exactly what he was allowed to do under the ban agreement. Maybe you needed to be reminded of his right to appeal... ;-)

Everyone Murders

December 14th, 2015 at 2:41 PM ^

To be sure the HoF is a perplexing place, where you have alleged scoundrels like Ty Cobb and Reggie Jackson lionized for being tremendous players, and other generally good guys like Joe Jackson shunned on scant evidence.  It's a weird place in that way.

But (and see my post below for a link) Rose gambled when he was a player.  This is not an "after his playing days" were over situation.  Rose lied about that for years, but got outed in June.  Dude likes to lie a lot, so it's hard to keep up.

Even if Rose was only gambling as a manager, it's still intolerable.  Likely it makes your decisions improper (burn a start to get desperately needed middle relief, at the expense of a later game*), but undoubtedly it gives the appearance of impropriety. 

*I don't know if this sort of thing actually happened when Rose was managing, but his word on the matter is worth precisely nothing.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 14th, 2015 at 3:32 PM ^

Agreed - this is not just about "behavior."  Cheating to improve your own performance is one thing.  Being a scoundrel is one thing.  I don't think it's being dramatic to say that if players and managers gamble, it threatens to destroy the whole fabric of the sport.  Even if it's "only" betting on your own team.  You cannot do it, period.  When it comes to people trusting in the integrity of the competition they see, there literally is no greater threat.

Rose has to stay banned at least for life.

ESNY

December 14th, 2015 at 3:25 PM ^

It is amazing to me that anyone can defend Pete Rose.  He is a piece of shit that broke the one rule you don't break and is suffering through the expected punishment.   Even worse is he denied breaking that rule for 30 fucking years.   Plus all evidence points to him doing shit to a much greater extent than previously known. 

How anyone can think he deserves to be reinstated is beyond me. 

UM Indy

December 14th, 2015 at 1:36 PM ^

Let him in.

That's the reasonable compromise. No job in MLB and no access to events without Commish's ok but recognition of incomparable player he was by getting HOF vote. No guarantee he'd even get in. Would be the veterans committee which is notoriously divided on Pete.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Yeoman

December 14th, 2015 at 7:01 PM ^

I think there should be a plaque somewhere in the HOF explaining, in detail, exactly why he isn't a member. A copy of one of his betting sheets under glass, the theatre showing an interview with one of his bookies along with his fervent denials.

taistreetsmyhero

December 14th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^

That whole situation is a mess. Not sure why Rose still gambling is an issue, but if the commissioner wants to play morality police then whatever. Sports and morality is always a strange intersection

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

jman077

December 14th, 2015 at 1:40 PM ^

I'm not really sure how to feel about this. I've always sort of considered myself a supporter of his bid for the hall, but he allegedly told Manfred that he still bets on baseball. Even though he is totally allowed to bet on baseball as a private citizen, it's still probably not a good look. I've also looked a little more into the circumstances that led to the ban, and if I understand correctly he took the ban in exchange for not being charged more formally. If that was the deal, this might just be his cross to bear.

I'm not confident that the "But what about the steroids era" argument works for me, but the "Pete Rose is an incredible baseball player" argument still has some sway in my head.

The Dirty Nil

December 14th, 2015 at 1:45 PM ^

That last part of your post is the biggest thing for me when it comes to Pete Rose. What he did was obviously wrong, but it didn't give him a physical advantage. You certainly can't take away his accomplishments on the field or put asterisks next to his numbers like some of the other guys.

The Mad Hatter

December 14th, 2015 at 4:01 PM ^

from getting a job in MLB, that's one thing, and there are good arguments for that position.

I'm mainly talking about his place in the HoF.  He is one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game.  Keeping him out of the HoF seems petty and silly to me.

But I also think they should rehang the banners in Crisler, so you and I probably have slightly different morals.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 14th, 2015 at 4:33 PM ^

I don't think it's a question of morals.  It's a question of how people will view the game if they think the players and managers are doing things based on what will provide a favorable outcome with the bookie.  Or, God forbid, they get too far in debt with the bookie and the bookie comes to them with an easy way they can repay it.........

coachdad

December 15th, 2015 at 10:01 AM ^

with pete Rose if they go with Fan Duel or some other "non-gambling" site. Would it not be hypocritical? Steroids and PED's pose a threat not only to the game, but also to player's health. I know they are not in the HOF, but they are not banned from it either. Let's stop the sanctimonious podium  thumping over the dangers of gambling, PED use is just as bad. It threatens the integrity of the game to all of those who play by the rules.

Michigantrumpet82

December 15th, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^

I have been to Cooperstown many times.  His accomplishments as a hitter are included as a part of the exhibits.  It is not as if all mention of Pete Rose -- the player -- has been eradicated from the HOF.  

However, he does not have a plaque in the main hall.  Under the rules of the HOF, no player who has permanently been banned from the game is eligible.  

 

 

MGoblu8

December 14th, 2015 at 1:42 PM ^

Dumb. He's been away from the game for 25 years. A lifetime ban from involvement with MLB is one thing, but keeping him out of the HOF, where everyone knows he belongs, is just dumb.

GoBlueInIowa

December 14th, 2015 at 1:42 PM ^

Still keep him out of baseball, but let him be eligible for the HOF. More than likely does not vote him in. Moves the focus from MLB to the HOF voters. If I was MLB I would just make this someone else's problem. Hell, maybe lift the ban completely, would Rose really get hired by a team at this point anyways?

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

bacon

December 14th, 2015 at 1:46 PM ^

Rose is a very tragic figure. He bet on the team he managed, which should be a cardinal sin in all sports. He clearly does not have enough support from fans, former players, coaches, etc. to put pressure on the mlb to reverse the ban, and the mlb gains little from allowing him back in. To be honest, most people probably don't care one way or another, so it's much easier to keep the status quo.

ChuckieWoodson

December 14th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^

What he did was wrong.  However, betting on himself or other teams didn't have any impact on whether or not he has 4256 hits.  If you start factoring in "character" into HOF inductees for any sport, you'd have to kick a bunch of them out.