Apr 15, 2011, 1:00 PM EDT
You knew this was coming, because it’s trotted out by someone whenever a big steroid user is in the news for something. This time it’s Paul Daugherty of SI regurgitating the semi-annual “Why should Pete Rose be punished more than steroids users” column.
Which is fine as far as subject matter goes, because I think it is worth talking about comparative punishment for those who break baseball’s rules. But it does strike me that if you write an extended column about Pete Rose, his ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame without using the terms “Black Sox” “1919” and/or “World Series,” you’re not being historically accurate nor are you being intellectually honest.
Rules have consequences. But they also have reasons for existing. Any intelligent discussion of these matters needs to acknowledge the reasons for the rules Pete Rose broke and the reasons for his ban. Paul Daugherty’s discussion does neither and for that reason it is not intelligent.
- The Tigers are going to “reboot;” plan to trade Price and Cespedes 5
- Dodgers acquire Mat Latos and Michael Morse from Marlins 40
- Why do managers wear uniforms anyway? 41
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights 51
- Astros “making a strong effort” for Phillies ace Cole Hamels 31
- Angels acquire outfielders David Murphy and David DeJesus 24
- Jenrry Mejia gets 162-game ban for second failed PED test 52
- Nationals, Phillies agree to Jonathan Papelbon trade 65
- The MLBPA is considering withholding cooperation with ESPN, Fox over Colin Cowherd’s comments (157)
- The Cubs are in discussions with the Phillies on Cole Hamels (146)
- Colin Cowherd wonders how baseball can be considered “complicated” if Dominicans can understand it (129)
- Major League Baseball rips Colin Cowherd in an official statement (123)
- Settling the Scores: Wednesday’s results (106)