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.
- Must-click link: Tommy Harper and the Red Sox’ racist past 2
- Settling the Score: Saturday’s results 13
- Matt Garza ejected after hitting Andrew McCutchen a second time 32
- Tigers hang on for second straight win against Royals 7
- Phil Hughes could finish the season with the best K/BB ratio in MLB history 13
- Settling the Score: Friday’s results 25
- Clayton Kershaw wins his 20th game of the season 13
- Why are so many people acting like Bryce Harper is a bum? 81
- Geddy Lee’s baseball obsession makes it really hard for me to hate Rush (118)
- Ron Washington claims he resigned because he cheated on his wife (103)
- It certainly looks like Barry Bonds’ criminal conviction is going to be overturned (101)
- Umpire ejects jackwagon fan heckling Bryce Harper in Atlanta last night (85)
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights (83)