The other day I was having a discussion about Pete Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy. Many people seem to be of the belief that Rose, baseball's all-time career hits leader with 4,256, should be in the Hall of Fame in spite of his lifetime ban for betting on baseball. They believe it should mentioned on his plaque. They believe a Hall of Fame that honors baseball's best players isn't complete without Pete Rose. They believe that he should be inducted because he never bet on baseball as a player.
I staunchly believe that Rose should never be inducted into the Hall of Fame. It is something I will go to my grave believing. I hope he is never reinstated. I hope he is never inducted. My discussion the other day prompted me to list the reasons why...
1. Anyone who bets on baseball is banned for life and is ineligible for induction into the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose bet on baseball.
It is a matter of Major League Baseball Rule 21C that any player who bets on baseball is banned for life. Rose bet on baseball. 1989's Dowd Report, the findings of John M. Dowd on Rose's gambling on baseball and specifically on Cincinnati Reds games, concludes that Rose did in fact bet on baseball games in 1985, 1986 and 1987. Rose denied having ever bet on baseball throughout the investigation, which is acknowledged in the Dowd Report. However, in the January 12, 2004 issue of Sports Illustrated, an excerpt of Rose's newly released book in which Rose admitted to betting on baseball.
The Hall of Fame doesn't allow anyone on the suspended list to be inducted. Rule 3E of the Baseball Writers Associate of America's election guidelines says it about as simply as it can be said:
"Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate."
Rule 6C of the Veterans' Committee's election guidelines essentially repeats the same line:
"Any person designated by the Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball as ineligible shall not be an eligible candidate."
So if Pete Rose bet on baseball, as the Dowd Report concluded in 1989 and Rose himself admitted in 2004, if Rose is banned for life by baseball and if the Hall of Fame voting guidelines says any player banned for life in ineligible, then Pete Rose shouldn't be inducted (nor should Joe Jackson or any of the other members of the Black Sox scandal of the thrown 1919 World Series). What good is a rule if it isn't enforced? Speaking of which...
2. What good is a rule if one is allowed to break it?
Rules are in place for a reason. And there has to be a deterrant that prevents people from breaking rules, not just in baseball but in all walks of life. For example, one of the deterrants to killing another is life in jail or, in some states, being sentenced to death. In baseball, the deterrant to betting on baseball is a lifetime suspension and, consequently, being ineligible for the Hall of Fame.
If Rose is reinstated and ultimately ends up in the Hall of Fame, what good is the rule? Any current player could bet on baseball with no fear of severe punishment. If Rose is inducted into the Hall of Fame, what's to stop Player X with Hall of Fame credentials from betting on baseball if he knows the precedent has been set that would allow him back into the game and would allow him into the Hall of Fame?
Rose's ineligibility (and Joe Jackson's, and that of Lefty Williams, Swede Risberg, Buck Weaver, Eddie Cicotte, Happy Felsch, Chick Gandil and Fred McMullin, and those other gamblers suspended during Kennesaw Mountain Landis' reign as commissioner) isn't just a suspension of the player but also a symbol of what will happen to anyone else who engages in such activity. Lifting Rose's suspension and opening the Hall of Fame doors to open allows any player who wishes to engaging in betting on baseball to do so without fear or everlasting consequence.
3. Pete Rose agreed to the lifetime ban.
I always felt that if Pete Rose truly believed that he didn't bet on baseball, he never should have agreed to the lifetime ban. He should have fought the good fight until the very end to clear his good name. Of course, he didn't do that, largely because he couldn't do that because he knew he bet on baseball. According to the agreement between Rose and Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, signed by both parties on Aug. 23, 1989, Rose received a copy of the 225-page Dowd Report on May 11, 1989. Thus, so long as he actually read it (which I believe to be a questionable proposition at best, though I'm sure his attorneys read it over), he was fully aware of its contents (though, at the time, he disputed the accuracy of the report). The agreement states that a hearing was scheduled for Rose on May 25, 1989 but on May 19, requested and received a postponement of that hearing until June 26, 1989.
The hearing never took place because Rose filed a civil suit, a case which also was never heard. Rose knew there was no way to defend himself because, as he acknowledged in his 2004 book, he bet on baseball and the Dowd Report findings and evidence was so overwhelmingly supportive of that conclusion that he couldn't possibly lie his way out of it in a hearing. So he instead agreed to a lifetime ban in exchange for Giamatti's agreeing to not conclude one way or the other as to whether or not Rose bet on baseball. From the signed agreement:
"Peter Edward Rose will conclude these proceedings before the Commissioner without a hearing and 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."
Thus, baseball never formally concluded that Rose bet on baseball. However, Rose formally agreed to be banned for life. From his agreement with Giamatti:
"Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."
Rose spent the subsequent 15 years denying that he had bet on baseball. He even applied for reinstatement in both 1992 and 1997, as the agreement with Giamatti said he could. The statement never said Rose would be reinstated, however, and to date he has not been. Correctly so, for reasons I outlined in my second point.
If Rose did not bet on baseball, he never should have agreed to a lifetime ban, even under the stipulation that the commissioner would not formally rule that Rose had bet on baseball. (Giamatti's personal statement, released on Aug. 24, 1989, makes it quite clear that Giamatti believed Rose to have bet on baseball and on Reds games, though he didn't say something as clear as "I believe Pete Rose bet on baseball games and on Cincinnati Reds games.")
Anyway, back to my point: Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime suspension. He agreed to be ineligible for the Hall of Fame. He agreed to the right to apply for reinstatement. He agreed that he would not be guaranteed reinstatement, as per Major League Baseball's Rule 15C that is referenced in his agreement with Giamatti. So tell me, on what basis does Rose complain about his fate when it was fate he agreed to in a signed legal document on August 23, 1989?
4. Pete Rose most likely bet on baseball as both a player and a manager.
I often hear the argument that Rose should be inducted into the Hall of Fame on the basis of the fact that he bet on baseball as a manager and not as a player, and thus his accolades as a player should get him enshrined. I've always found that to be an incredibly weak argument but I'll go along with it for the purposes of this essay. Here's the problem: the Dowd Report concludes that Rose bet on baseball at least as far back as 1985. Rose was still an active player that season (in fact, that was the season in which he set the all-time hits record) and remained active through the 1986 season (he was both a player and manager those seasons, the last of its kind in Major League Baseball).
Wrote Dowd in Section II of his report entitled "Summary of Report":
"As discussed in Section III, during the 1985 and 1986 seasons, Rose placed bets on baseball with Ron Peters, a bookmaker in Franklin, Ohio. Although Rose placed his bets with Peters primarily through Tommy Gioiosa, on several occasions Rose placed bets on baseball games, including Cincinnati Reds games, directly with Peters."
From Section III:
"[Ron] Peters testified that he took bets from Gioiosa and Pete Rose during the period from late 1984 to late 1986, when he stopped taking Rose's action. He stated that Pete Rose bet on professional football, college basketball, and Major League baseball. He specifically stated that Pete Rose bet on Major League baseball games in 1985, 1986 and 1987, including games played by the Cincinnati Reds while Pete Rose was both a player and manager."
Dowd clearly believes Rose bet on baseball in 1985 and 1986, but it must be stated for the record that the hard evidence he provides neither confirms nor refutes that. The evidence without fail confirms that Rose did bet from 1987 on, his first season as a retired player and solely a manager.
5. Pete Rose's character is...ummmm...questionable at best.
Given Rose's accolades as a player, I have heard the argument that a shrine honoring the greatest players of all-time isn't complete with Rose. Maybe so. However, Hall of Fame voters are supposed to consider more than just standard of play when determining if a player is worthy of enshrinement. From the BBWAA's voting guidelines:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Let me reporst those guidelines by underlining some of the keys beyond the "player's record" and "playing ability."
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Tell me, how, exactly, has Pete Rose demonstrated integrity and character?
By betting on baseball games for at least three years with sworn testimony that it happened for five, as both a player and manager?
By lying to the world about betting on baseball for 15 years, from the beginning of Major League Baseball's investigation in 1989 until his admission in 2004?
By admitting to betting on baseball by writing a book, allowing himself to profit off his admission?
By releasing the book the same week as the 2004 Hall of Fame election results were announcing, taking away from the spotlight that those enshrinees (Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor) deserved?
By spending every Hall of Fame weekend in Cooperstown, down the street from the Hall of Fame, charging people for autographs and photographis like a circus clown?
By, while a manager in 1988, shoving umpire Dave Pallon over a disputed call and receiving the longest ever suspension to a manager for on-field conduct?
By filing false income tax returns?
That seems like a guy completely devoid of character and integrity to me, and while I fully acknowledge that there are plenty of players who have earned enshrinement despite character flaws, I also think it must be pointed out that Rose's playing record alone doesn't automatically qualify him for the Hall of Fame, as defined by the voting guidelines.
So, tell me again, why should Rose be reinstated? What should he be in the Hall of Fame?
No comments:
Post a Comment