Apr 15, 2011, 1:00 PM EST
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.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 25
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 26
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 374
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (374)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (145)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)