Skip to content

Pete Rose’s misdeeds now considered “small beer”

Aug 14, 2013, 8:55 AM EDT

Rose horizontal

The same people who freak out when you compare PED cheats to spitballers, bat-corkers and amphetamine poppers are increasingly comparing gambling on baseball to PED use and absolving the gamblers. Because that makes sense. Here’s Frank DeFord who, after talking about how great Ichiro Suzuki is and how awesome Cooperstown will be the day he is inducted, argues that Pete Rose should go in on the same day:

It would also be so appropriate at that time for baseball to finally show some mercy to Pete Rose and let him enter the shrine with Suzuki. The drug cheats have put Rose’s offense in perspective. He did not damage baseball one iota as a player, and his misdeed as a manager now appears as small beer alongside how those druggies dishonored the game, distorted history and robbed their fellow players.

As I’ve said 100 times, I think Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. But I have no idea how that decision depends on there being allegedly worse cheaters coming along later. There is no relation between the PED guys and Rose. They have nothing to do with one another. Unless of course you wanna let Bonds, Clemens, Manny, A-Rod and McGwire in if, some day, another ballplayer murders someone. Then at least you’d be consistent I suppose.

Knock off the relativism already, will ya? Or at least be fair about it. If we’re going to compare the severity of offenses against baseball, include them all and acknowledge that PEDs isn’t the worst thing that ever happened.

  1. skids003 - Aug 14, 2013 at 8:58 AM

    He knew the rules, arrogantly and knowingly broke them. Leave him out.

    • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:17 AM

      Yes, he knew the rules. The rules were that if you gamble you are banned from baseball. Rose is not seeking reinstatement.

      AFTER Rose accepted his punishment, the HOF (seemingly at the behest of MLB, because there was no other reason to do it) changed their rules to make banned people ineligible for the HOF. That was an exceedingly petty move by the HOF and MLB (not surprisingly).

      Of course Rose should be in the HOF.

      Of course Rose should never work for a major league team.

      ….all of that is beside the point that the comparisons between one rule violation and another are stupid. There is also no rule that if you used a PED you shouldn’t be elected to the HOF. Like Rose’s agreement with MLB, that is not part of the agreed to punishment, that is just BBWAA being petty and revisionist (ignoring all forms of cheating except for one very specific one).

      • Gamera the Brave - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

        In other news, David Hasselhoff would like everyone on this thread to stop misspelling his nickname…

      • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM

        Are they not capitalizing the “T” in “The Hoff”?

      • clemente2 - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        Some other revisionist history—the Hall only formalized its rule that no one could be elected if they were banned by MLB after Rose’s banning. It had been the informal but understood rule for long before that.

      • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:54 AM

        Not really. No other banned players had retired with a legitimate HOF case since the HOF came into existence. The rules for HOF induction have been highly dynamic throughout its history…there has rarely been even a 10 year period in which major changes weren’t made to induction procedures or the approaches taken by writers.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 14, 2013 at 1:03 PM

        On the contrary, I have no doubt that Joe Jackson would have been enshrined if not for his being banned as a result of the Black Sox scandal.

    • mgflolox - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM

      Ya ever think that by not being in the HOF, Rose is actually more famous than he would be if he were in? I’ve noticed this about Shoeless Joe, over 90 years since he played his last game, pretty much every baseball fan knows who he is. Tris Speaker was regarded as maybe the 3rd greatest player of his time (behind Wagner and Cobb), yet he is almost forgotten about.

    • bigharold - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:39 PM

      “AFTER Rose accepted his punishment, the HOF (seemingly at the behest of MLB, because there was no other reason to do it) changed their rules to make banned people ineligible for the HOF. That was an exceedingly petty move by the HOF and MLB (not surprisingly).”

      While I agree with your points on Rose’s situation concerning his enshrinement in the HoF and the possibility of a future role in MLB, I don’t see what MLB did as petty. It tool Rose 15 years to fess up so and he’s never really shown any contrition. Even now, where he’s been more forthright he’s still blaming it on his addiction in a way that side steps his personal responsibility. And, his continuing to compare his situation with PED users or wife beaters or DUI or whatever isn’t helping his cause. Sure, the rule was like directed at Rose but it was also because of Rose’s boorish behavior not vindictiveness on MLB part. At least that’s my opinion. And, I’m pretty sure had Rose admitted his transgressions immediately he’d be in the HoF by now.

  2. spellingcops - Aug 14, 2013 at 8:58 AM

    Craig should be a politician with as hard as he loves to push his agenda.

    • heyblueyoustink - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:46 AM

      Spellingcop eh?

      Phuck Yu.

      Come and get me.

      • spellingcops - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:01 PM

        Was that an attempt at humor or is your nose so far up Craig’s ass that that actually offended you?

    • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      I know, what is he thinking? It’s not like he has his own blog or anything….

      Oh….wait.

    • badintent - Aug 15, 2013 at 1:01 AM

      you mean he’s not one ? Coulda fooled me. Craig is a weasel,like all lawyers.

  3. jarathen - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    I do think the moral relativism is odd and not what the HoF is about. I don’t mind DeFrod because he’s a kindly old uncle. You listen to his rants, sometimes there’s some truth in them, but they’re generally positive and pro-people (like his blast against college athletics recently). Sometimes they engage in fuzzy logic, like this here, but, and I say this as a Sustaining Member of public radio, come on – it’s public radio. He’s not a heavyweight at this point.

    Players like Rose and Jackson should be in the Hall because the Hall shouldn’t be about the morality of baseball or whatever sanctity we hold the game to – it should be about the game. Not because what they did isn’t as bad on some scale as what others did

    • yahmule - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM

      I tend to agree with this. Are we going to get Bert Sugar’s take next?

  4. stoutfiles - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    Pete Rose the manager should be banned from all baseball events going forward.

    Pete Rose the player is the hit king and should be in the Hall of Fame. It isn’t the Hall of Likeable Guys.

    • ptfu - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM

      What about when he bet on baseball while he was the player-manager?

      • stoutfiles - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM

        Did his betting help him get hits?

        Again, he should be banned from all baseball activities going forward, but his betting did not turn him into a good baseball player. The Hall is supposed to recognize the best players who put up the best numbers to help their teams win. Rose did that and should be in the Hall for it. The HOF is not supposed to be a judge of character, otherwise we should go into there and start throwing people out.

      • ptfu - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:49 AM

        Did betting help him get hits? Maybe, who knows. Did he ever hack on 3-0 knowing he HAD to drive in the runner, or else?

        And if you’re going to ask that question, then you also have to ask if betting could have prevented him from getting hits. Whether by him tanking at-bats, or swinging for the fences instead of shortening up the two-strike swing, or however else you can alter an at-bat. I certainly can’t answer that question, and I don’t think anyone else can either.

        The point is, betting could have influenced game performances–as a player, player-manager, and manager. It’s a conflict of interest that baseball has recognized as inappropriate, and has clearly spelled out the consequences.

      • Glenn - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:33 AM

        Actually, the baseball HOF is the one HOF with a character clause.

        And once the integrity of the outcome of any sporting event is suspect, it ceases to be a legitimate sport. That is why baseball was in such a crisis by 1919. It is also why I no longer follow boxing. And betting on your team to win occasionally does affect the outcome of games. When you rest players, how you use your pitchers – especially bullpen, etc., may make your team weaker on days that you do not bet on your team. Then there is the danger of becoming indebted to gamblers and to all of the misconduct that can lead to. Pete Rose has made his bed and should now lie in it.

      • skids003 - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        With the wife he has, he should be happy lying in his bed.

  5. dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:09 AM

    Setting aside the gambling, setting aside use of amps, setting aside the other off-field ‘character’ issues including the tax fraud conviction, there is at least as much evidence that Rose used AAS as there is for Piazza, Bagwell, Sosa, and others who are being implicated without a positive test or admission. Rose lived with and paid money to a convicted steroid dealer and utlized him as a trainer. Did he use? I have no idea and as it wasn’t against the rules at the time, don’t care. But for those who paint an entire era without giving us facts to support it, the articles supporting Rose are silly in the extreme.

  6. voteforno6 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM

    Pete Rose knowingly broke a rule that strikes right at the integrity of the game. That is why he should stay out of the Hall of Fame. The same argument could be made for those that took PEDs, and is what will probably keep a lot of them out as well. That being said, there are probably people in the Hall of Fame who gambled and didn’t get caught, just as there are probably those who took PEDs and didn’t get caught.

    • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM

      As long as you realize that there is probably no player in the HOF that played after WWII that didn’t use some form of PED, that’s fine….I guess.

    • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

      Pete Rose knowingly broke a rule … The same argument could be made for those that took PEDs …

      Pre 2004, what rule did the PED users break?

      • Glenn - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

        The state and federal laws against using steroids?

      • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

        If they weren’t against baseball’s rules, how is that different than players who broke other state or federal laws from DUI to tax evasion?

    • heyblueyoustink - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

      “integrity of the game”

      Bwaaaahahahahhahaha!!!!!!!!

      Good one.

    • Mr. Chickadee - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM

      There are also gamblers in the Hall, at least according to Dutch Leonard and Commissioner Landis: Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on–and threw–a game in 1919: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1087404/index.htm

      • raysfan1 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        There were also at least 2 other World Series tainted by gambler involvement prior to 1919.http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=1702483&src=desktop

  7. paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    I don’t know how long it has been since I’ve seen a mental leap so large that concludes: “It would also be so appropriate at that time for baseball to finally show some mercy to Pete Rose and let him enter the shrine with Suzuki.” Rose and Suzuki have about as much to do with each other as the amount of course woody debris in the forest by my house and the price of a big mac in Moscow.

    • nickswishersneck - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM

      True, but suppose a butterfly lands on the woody debris and flaps its wings….

      • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:50 AM

        Well, obviously, the price of big macs in Moscow would double and Buster Olney would spend weeks lamenting the injustices in his columns and during his in-game cut-ins.

    • IdahoMariner - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      and please, i would like to watch ichiro’s induction without having to hear or see Rose, on a purely aesthetic level.
      yeah, let him in, i am not a fan of mlb and its ex post facto bullying. he gets in on performance alone. but, man, i can’t stand that guy. so,no, don’t let him in with ichi, frank, and don’t do it because of moral relativism. stinky, stinky, stinky.

      • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM

        Nooooooooooooo kidding.

        Besides combining two unrelated things….it is like giving a giant middle finger to Ichiro and the entire nation of Japan (as Ichiro would be the first Japanese player in the HOF (US version).

  8. sdelmonte - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    List of activities known to leave you open to outside manipulation of events for the benefit of others but not your own team: gambling.

    • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM

      Well, gambling, in theory gives someone leverage because of debt.

      Say a player used PEDs, someone had physical evidence of that…couldn’t that give a person the same type (and even stronger) of leverage over a player?

      All you need is leverage.

      I am NOT saying Rose didn’t get what he deserved, but I don’t think leverage is unique to gambling.

      • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

        Couldn’t you make the same argument about someone who cheats on his spouse, a closeted gay player, or pretty much any matter that a person wants to keep private?

      • paperlions - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM

        I think so, yes. The question is leverage, the fact that only gambling is involved in one scenario (gambling created the leverage used to fix games for gamblers) whereas other factors are involved in others doesn’t affect the ability of certain elements to use leverage to exert pressure to modify behavior.

      • bigharold - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:50 PM

        “Couldn’t you make the same argument about someone who cheats on his spouse, a closeted gay player, …”

        Not necessarily. While those things might well provide some leverage they generally aren’t the type of things that could ruin or end a career. Even PED use, assuming one has the evidence, can only be terminal for a two time offender.

  9. billmed1947 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:25 AM

    I can’t think of anything worse than betting on the game when you are a manager or participant. We don’t really know what sort of bets Rose placed–we have no way of knowing whether or not he bet against his own teams. Only he knows for sure. He could have placed hundreds of bets that no one else knows about. And that places every game his teams lost in doubt. Gambling on your own game raises doubts about every outcome.

    • nickswishersneck - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      Nothing worse? Since the Aaron Hernandez story broke, it doesn’t take great leaps of imagination to think of something worse. Let’s hope no one is trying to one-up the last worst examples of bad behavior.

      • bigharold - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:54 PM

        “Nothing worse?”

        I think we’re talking in the realm of sports transgressions not life in general.

    • seitz26 - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM

      Once a guy starts betting on his own team regularly, it really doesn’t even matter if we know what the bets were, and we don’t have to assume any of them were against the Reds. Rose could have bet on the Red 150 times per year, but if he tipped someone off that he wasn’t betting on the Reds for those other twelve, you can surmise that he was refraining because he was tanking those games, and he was tanking those games because he owed someone a lot of money. It’s not a very large logical leap.

  10. tbutler704 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

    Small beer is a funny term.

    • yahmule - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:53 AM

      I’m trying to source it. Seems to have just appeared in Frank’s head yesterday.

      • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

        Its a very old term. The word choices Deford makes reminds me of George Plimpton and other ‘intellectual’ sports writers of the 60s. Much better wordsmiths than the Plasckes and Lupicas of today.

      • yahmule - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:19 PM

        Indeed. Sadly, guys like Lupica and Plaschke have little incentive to improve.

    • thumper001 - Aug 14, 2013 at 2:01 PM

      In the old days, you could actually order a short glass of beer in most taverns called a “tad”, or small beer (I actually have a Sam Adams “tad” glass in the glass pantry right now). They were usually 4-6 ounces, and served in short glasses. Mugs were typically 12-20+ ounces depending on the tavern, with most being 16.

      So NO, small beer did not just appear in Frank’s head out of thin air. As lots of folks used to grab a “tad and a burger” for lunch when they were in a hurry (before the DUI pressure mounted).

      (Bartender was one of my two jobs during my college years, that and tool and die making paid the bills when I got my computer science degree. Over the years, I must have served hundreds of tads to folks on lunch breaks).

  11. chap6869 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:49 AM

    I’m not going to say I agree totally with Frank DeFord on his article but I also think Craig is being short sighted if he thinks there is no relevance at all. Is PEDs the worst thing that happened to the game, no…but in my opinion it’s right up there. We argue that Pete broke the cardinal rule of baseball by betting on the game, thereby possibly altering every game he managed. That is very true, BUT, couldn’t the same thing be said for any player in the steriod era that took steriods or PEDs? How many games would team X have won had their “star” player not hit 60 homeruns but instead hit around what his career average of 25-30 had been before the PEDs? How many teams made the playoffs because their star suddenly went from driving in 70-80 RBIs to 120-140 RBIs? How many teams got screwed about of a possible playoff berth because of games that got “altered” by PED use? History was rewritten because of PED/Steriod use, anybody who claims any different is just a fool.

    • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      Is PEDs the worst thing that happened to the game, no…but in my opinion it’s right up there.

      We’ll have to agree to disagree.

      Off the top of my head, my list of the worst things that happened to the game, in no particular order, include but is not limited to: pre-1947 segregation line; the 1919 Black Sox and their many predecessors from 1865 forward who conspired with gamblers, the late 80s/90s collusion cases where owners gathered together an promised not to try their best to win; the strikes, particularly those of ’81 and ’94; the cancellation of the world series; the death of Ray Chapman; the pre-Messersmith reserve clause; the death of the independent minor leagues following Branch Rickey’s Cardinal model; the cocaine issues of the late 70s and early 80s where players took drugs that directly caused them to play worse; and Gary Sheffield telling reporters that he intentionally committed errors for personal benefit.

      Players taking pharma that was not against any explicit rule for the purpose of playing better which (probably) had an impact on the record books is, for me, no where near the top of the list. And for me, this applies equally to both AAS and amps.

      • chap6869 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

        So Rose betting on his own team to win ranks, in your mind, right up there with segregation, an entire team throwing a World Series or someones death? See, the argument could go both ways. If we take your comparisons, then Rose betting on Baseball is small potatos and he should be in the Hall! And my point was simply to refute how Craig denies the two have any comparison to one another. If we are going to continue to banish Rose from the game for altering it then PEDs could and should be looked upon in the same manner. Just because baseball finally pulled it’s collective head out of it’s ass and started doing what’s right in 2004 still doesn’t change the basic argument that a cheater is a cheater!!!

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

        Quick question, what’s AAS? Racking my brain for that acronym.

        Also, don’t forget that PED use, by the very definition of the term, has been prevalent in baseball since the 60s. Just because players today may have better PEDs doesn’t excuse the behavior of those that had worse ones.

      • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM

        So Rose betting on his own team to win ranks, in your mind, right up there with segregation, an entire team throwing a World Series or someones death?

        Since you are replying to my comment, I’ll assume that is directed at me. However, I have no idea what you are actually replying to as my list of things that I believe are worse than the PED issue post-Canseco did not mention implicitly or explictly Rose’s betting.

        Just because baseball finally pulled it’s collective head out of it’s ass and started doing what’s right in 2004 still doesn’t change the basic argument that a cheater is a cheater!!!

        Cheating is doing something that is against the rules.

      • raysfan1 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:51 AM

        Yes, Rose belongs in the HoF.

        No, you don’t know that Rose only bet on his team to win. You only have his say-so for whatever his word is worth now.

        We also do have evidence that he used amphetamines, used a corked bat, and had close associations with a known steroid dealer.

      • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:53 AM

        Quick question, what’s AAS? Racking my brain for that acronym.

        Anabolic Steroids. Basically what baseball fans mean when they broadly say “steroids” but more specific to exclude the permissible Corticosteroids such as prednisone or hydrocortosone.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM

        Thanks, I know of the difference. It’s just that’s the first time the acronym has been used in these threads.

    • Alex K - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM

      What you’re missing is that people from both teams were more than likely using. Also, pitchers used, too. Offense isn’t the only factor in who wins a game.

      I say all that even though we have no idea how much or if steroids help performance.

      • chap6869 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        I agree with you Alex that it obviously altered more than just offense but I think that there is little doubt that steroids helped performance. Do you still have to hit a ball?, yes, but if you went from averaging 25 home runs and suddenly those balls that used to make it to the mid outfield/ warning track area are suddenly clearing the fence and your now hitting 60-70 homers…clearly it helped performance and the outcome of games with it!!!

      • Alex K - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM

        There are any number of factors that could effect how many fly balls go over the fence. Ball composition, weather, park dimensions, level of comptetion, etc. I’m not going to pretend like I know how much or if steroids factored into things.

      • chap6869 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:50 AM

        So Bonds hitting 73 home runs ( at the age of 36 no less) when he averaged, through all of his prime years, 35 home runs had nothing to do with steroids Alex? What was it then, the wind?lol

      • raysfan1 - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM

        Alex never said steroids had nothing to do with it. Also, Bonds did not just use steroids in 2001 and yet hit 24 more HRs that year than any other in his career. Even with the steroid use it was an outlier year for him in terms of home run production. (Bonds also used amphetamines.)

        Alex is right, there are a lot of other factors that also contributed to the offense explosion in the 1990s and 2000s. Poorer pitching. Body armor. Pitchers ejected more often for brush back pitches. Ball composition. Park configuration. Expansion. I could go on but won’t.

        PEDs played a part, but were not the only issue.

      • Alex K - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        Brady Anderson hit 50 HR’s in 1996 at age 32 (26 more than his next highest year which came in 1999 at age 35). Are you going to say that Anderson took steroids for that one year and then stopped?

        Roger Maris never hit more than 39 HR’s before or after his season of hitting 61. By your logic he was taking steroids in 1961. We can find outlier HR seasons for a lot of players.

      • chap6869 - Aug 14, 2013 at 1:14 PM

        Alex and Raysfan,
        I’m not disagreeing that players have outier years, as you guys put it, and Maris certainly would be a good one to point out. With that being said, I don’t remember anyone ever saying Maris grew to ridiculous size in a one year span nor do I remember reading or hearing about Maris caught up in a Balco scandal. I’m not trying to be a smartass with you guys when I say this so excuse me if it comes off that way, but you would have to be extremely niave to believe that so many different guys all have an outlier year within a 10 year span (1993-2003) and have it explained away that pitching suddenly got worse or the wind was blowing different in those 10 years. Does anyone actually believe that the Mcgwire/Sosa show wasn’t steriod induced or that Bonds with his near overnight growth with sudden tree trunks for arms and forehead the size of a melon wasn’t steriod or PED induced. The list of guys that out of nowhere were all now behemoths could go on and on. I’m a born and bred Phillies fan and even I’m all but convinced the 93 team got to where they did that year at least partly from steroids. Hell, Lenny Dykstra even joked about it with reporters that year that he was taking them. Him, Daulton, Hollins, they all looked bigger and hit with more power than any other time before that.
        There may have been other issues, as you point out, but the single biggest issue points right at steroid and PED use.

      • Alex K - Aug 14, 2013 at 4:49 PM

        I’m not saying that the guys you mentioned didn’t use, just that we don’t know how much those drugs had to do with the huge power output since there are a million things that go into a HR. To me, it’s naive to lay most the blame on PED use when there is zero way to separate it out from other factors.

  12. cspuck7 - Aug 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

    If Pete would just be quiet and let debates like this play out, I think he would have a chance to get in. The unintelligent way in which he speaks out, like his last outburst, does a disservice to any sympathy he has gained as a result of the PED scandal(s), and continues to show that he just doesn’t get it.

    • jfk69 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM

      Pete can’t shut up. He wants to be enshrined while he is alive. There is little difference between him and Arod psychologically speaking.

    • chumthumper - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      Rose will probably get in someday, but he’ll be long gone and pushing up daisies.

  13. wmatthew760 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM

    PEDs user do not have deliberate outcome on any specific game, but if throw a game based on gambling is does.
    So what is worse? If you take PEDS you still need skill to succeed, but if you use your skills to fail, I think that is worse.

    • chap6869 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:44 AM

      But in the end, aren’t they both cheating? doesn’t both change the outcome of games( whether deliberately or not)? As I said in an earlier post, a cheater is a cheater, just because some may view one a little less harshly than another, it’s still cheating and it still ruins the “integrity” of the game!

      • raysfan1 - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:48 AM

        Sure, and the same is true of scuffing balls and corking bats–they are cheating and can affect the outcome of games as can using steroids or amphetamines. Gambling is different in that it creates at least a perception of not necessarily trying to win, or of shaving runs due to a betting spread.

  14. jfk69 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

    Aggggghhh………Morals ethics and ego….SPELL MEE…It is always about me.

  15. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:29 AM

    Here’s a random question, that I’m shocked no one has asked*. Why are we so sure that Rose would even get elected into the HoF? He’s beyond the 15 year eligibility, but maybe the HoF could hold a single year election period for him. Are we so sure that he’d get the requisite 75% of the vote?

    *I’d love to see someone like Jayson Stark take a poll of like 30 HoF voters and ask them if they would vote for Rose. Then hopefully Stark would ask if they vote for guys like Bagwell, Piazza, and Biggio. If those same writers say no, I’d love to see the mental hoops those guys have to jump through to explain the difference.

    • dlf9 - Aug 14, 2013 at 10:58 AM

      If Rose were no longer on the permanently ineligible list, he would not be eligible for the BBWAA vote. Remember, they are limited to players who last played more than 5 and less than 21 years ago. If Rose were to come up for a vote, it would be before the newly reformulated Veterans Commmittee.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        I’m aware of that, it’s why i said He’s beyond the 15 year eligibility, but maybe the HoF could hold a single year election period for him.. Considering the HoF can make up their own rules, like holding elections for people multiple times (see the Joe Posnanski Willie Mays Article), they could give Rose anything they wanted if he were declared eligible.

  16. lawson1974 - Aug 14, 2013 at 11:35 AM

    Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame and every poll of the people shows support for that.
    He belongs in regardless of what goes on with the PED users.

    Of course he deserved some punishment for his gambling. Baseball needed to show that was unacceptable. But just like we don’t execute people for assault, a lifetime ban is way beyond what is necessary.
    Unless it can be proven that someone threw games it shouldn’t even be an option.
    Paul Hornung and Alex Karras bet on NFL games and got a 1 year suspension, yet somehow the NFL has carried on even though they both came back and played and eventually entered their Hall of Fame.

    • antaresrex - Aug 14, 2013 at 3:56 PM

      You’re assuming that assault is the equivalent crime in a real-life context to gambling in a sporting context. I would strongly dispute that. Gambling in sports has historically been treated as closer to murder than mere assault.

      Hornung and Karras “served their sentences” and were “released”, just as sometimes convicted murderers are not executed or even given lifetime sentences. The fact that not every murderer is given capital punishment does not mean that capital punishment is never justified. A sports league has every right to deal with gambling as harshly as it deems necessary.

  17. geodude11 - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:11 PM

    As to Pete’s recent comments concerning wishing he’d had developed a different vice, couldn’t he have done better that offering “alcoholism and wife beating”? I think his violations pale in comparison with a player’s use of performance enhancing drugs. “Charlie Hustle” helped teach generations of athletes that every play, every chance was the most important one.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 14, 2013 at 1:38 PM

      “Charlie Hustle” helped teach generations of athletes that every play, every chance was the most important one.

      Ah yes, the guy who broke the major rule of the sport he played, lied about it for 15 years, and then wrote a book about his lies, so when he finally came clean he could make a buck out of it.

      Perfect role model for today’s youth…

    • antaresrex - Aug 14, 2013 at 3:57 PM

      ““Charlie Hustle” helped teach generations of athletes that every play, every chance was the most important one.”

      So he tried hard? Players are supposed to try hard. He shouldn’t get extra credit for doing something he was supposed to do in the first place.

  18. rbj1 - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:15 PM

    Pete Rose does not belong in the Hall of Fame. After he voluntarily agreed to be put on the permanently ineligible list, the private HoF amended its standards to keep out those on the PI list. Why should the Hall of Fame lower those standards?

  19. scoutsaysweitersisabust - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM

    I honestly don’t care one way or another. The Hall stopped having any meaning for me years ago. If I had my way, the entire building would be emptied out, stripped down, and blown up. Then rebuilt, and start from scratch. All members have to be voted back in and do it right. But I’m sure they’d find a way to screw that up anyways. The entire thing is too political, and over the years has completely lost any direction or meaning. Writers need to be kept the hell out of the entire process, too many bad or just average players are in, too many people care about players off field activities, political beliefs, etc.

    I do believe eventually he will be allowed in, and it will coincidentally happen the year after he dies.

  20. umrguy42 - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:42 PM

    Question I wondered the other day, after the last Pete Rose story – if Pete had *only* bet on games that the Reds weren’t playing in, what would baseball have done to him?

    • umrguy42 - Aug 14, 2013 at 12:59 PM

      Actually, catching up with the Joe Morgan post from earlier, where people kindly posted rule 21(d), technically, he wouldn’t have been in violation – I thought initially it was an absolute proscription against betting on baseball. But would they have done anything to him (or what would have happened if they suspected, but couldn’t *prove*, that he bet on Reds games)?

  21. BJ Hughes - Aug 14, 2013 at 2:35 PM

    Reblogged this on .

  22. millmannj - Aug 14, 2013 at 8:12 PM

    Every January the baseball writers like throwing around the Character clause when it comes to the players who used PEDs (or in the case of Bagwell & Piazza, guys who looked like they may have used them). They write their sanctimonious columns on “what do we tell the children?” Then use that character clause to keep guys out of the Hall.

    So these writers believe an admitted gambler rises above their Character threshold?

  23. Minoring In Baseball - Aug 15, 2013 at 5:51 AM

    Pete Rose is one of the greatest hitters to ever play the game, and a plaque, or lack of one, will not change that. The HOF is watered down, imo, and I really don’t think it’s as big of a deal as it used to be. When Rose was first retired, yeah, it seemed a little more special, and I’m sure it he would like to be there, but as others have stated, he may be more well-known for being the best player NOT to be in the HOF (or that could be Jackson, too). We’ll see how history plays itself out…
    http://minoringinbaseball.com/

  24. jdillydawg - Aug 16, 2013 at 9:51 PM

    That would be an awesome day. Look, baseball is what it is not just because of all the stand up, squeaky clean role models it cranks into the Hall every year, but it’s made up of the lowlifes, cheaters, and all-too-human players, too. Combined, all those people make baseball great.

    I love watching old games with Pete Rose with my kid. No one hustled like that guy. He was pure joy to watch. His fall from grace story is a story I’ll never get tired of telling and is one people need to know. By keeping him out of the Hall, baseball is depriving future generations of ever knowing about him. I’d say in a hundred years, that’s sadder for baseball than it is for Rose.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Managers get easier path to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3451)
  2. T. Tulowitzki (3042)
  3. C. Headley (2783)
  4. Y. Puig (2660)
  5. H. Ramirez (2655)
  1. R. Howard (2468)
  2. C. Lee (2458)
  3. B. Belt (2454)
  4. M. Trout (2165)
  5. A. Rios (2143)