Pete Rose

[dgwphotography]

Apparently, Pete Rose did bet on baseball as a player...

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986

[Gwreck]

I guess this is interesting -- but mostly I find it irrelevant.

I personally - and I doubt anyone who makes the key decisions - would never take any "reinstatement" talk seriously. The rule is clear, Rose is ineligible, and never getting in the hall of fame. I fail to see how this issue isn't (and shouldn't be) long since closed.

[dgwphotography]

Gwreck wrote: I guess this is interesting -- but mostly I find it irrelevant. I personally - and I doubt anyone who makes the key decisions - would never take any "reinstatement" talk seriously. The rule is clear, Rose is ineligible, and never getting in the hall of fame. I fail to see how this issue isn't (and shouldn't be) long since closed.

I agree completely. His defense, and the defense of his supporters has always been that if he only gambled as a manager, it shouldn't affect his hall of fame standing as a player. Ooooops...

[Guest d'Kong76]

This should put the final nails in his pine box.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I don't know about this being the final nails on anything.

I think opinions on Pete have changed over the years, and it's clear that he had a serious gambling addiction and needed help. Today that's treated like a disease. Baseball would have been better off treating it as such back in 1989 or whenever it was -- getting him out of uniform for a time and getting him in rehab. I think in a lot of ways, that would have been better for baseball and for Rose.

I would not be stunned if there was a partial reinstatement, especially around the All-Star Game. He'll never manage again. But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate).

The part of that article dealing with autographs is especially creepy. What a total cesspool that industry was and maybe still is. I like things that are autographed -- but if they're signed right in front of me, hopefully after I get to chat a little bit and enjoy meeting a player.

[Guest d'Kong76]

They can soften all they want, he won't be in the HOF in our lifetime.

[Frayed Knot]

You mean that Pete's "confessions" after decades of lying turned out to be lies themselves? Wow, whoda thunk that!!


I think this changes things to some degree in that a sizable portion of those who were on his side, reasoning that 25 years were enough of a punishment or that "it's just gambling" and that he never bet on his team to lose and only as a manager not a player (as if those distinctions make the contradictions go away), are going to back away from him now leaving him with even less support than he had before.

The timing of this whole thing doesn't work in his favor either. With the ASG coming up in Cincinnati, some thought that as the perfect opportunity for some level of reinstatement. Also, with only the NBA draft (Thursday) as a storyline until football camps open, this gives the chattering classes at ESPN a golden opportunity to discuss baseball without actually lowering themselves to talk about the games themselves while obsessing over a story involving a 'big personality' which is what they do best anyway.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, baseball did itself a bad by never really defining what Rose's redemption would look like. This is partly a result of Giammatti's death, I imagine. But as long as reinstatement is an option, the terms of reinstatement should be explicit, even if Rose was never going to meet them.

The issue really shouldn't be the Hall of Fame. It should be about whether he's again able to associate with baseball, hold a job, or walk on a ball field. To the extent that Hall of Fame is relevant, it should be as the last stage in his reconciliation, but the conversation usually treats it as the first.

[Guest d'Kong76]

If he was toast before this came out, he's burnt toast now.

[Edgy MD]

Bertolini's Notebook sounds like a pop renaissance historical novel.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

I know why the threat of a lifetime ban is necessary, but I also see the dangers in absolutes. I think here's a big difference between a guy with a sickness, which he clearly had (or still has, for all we know) and the Black Sox, conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series.

I think I'd rather have seen Rose getting the help he needed years ago and making the rounds each spring to talk to players about gambling addiction than any of the things that have transpired in the last 25 years.

We've been doing a lot of work with mental wellness, including trying to eliminate the stigma of mental illness. Baseball teams have whole staffs to help players with their physical wellness. I don't know if they have anything to treat the other struggles.

Having an absolute hanging there as the punishment -- the lifetime ban -- probably makes it less likely for people to get the help they need, or accept the help if approached.

We'll never know, of course, but it couldn't have been a secret that he was doing this -- or at least that he was a heavy gambler. What would have happened if MLB approached him saying, "Pete, you've got a problem and we can get you help?" Hopefully MLB would do that with a person with a drinking problem or other addictive issues. Maybe Josh Hamilton is a good comparison. I'm not sure to what extent MLB reached out to help him.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: The issue really shouldn't be the Hall of Fame. It should be about whether he's again able to associate with baseball, hold a job, or walk on a ball field. To the extent that Hall of Fame is relevant, it should be as the last stage in his reconciliation, but the conversation usually treats it as the first.

I totally agree even as most seem to view the HoF as if it's the holy grail and their one and only issue.
And if Pete and the Pete-ettes think official baseballdom has been tough on him over this topic, to get in the HoF he's going to have to get past the players who will likely be even tougher.

[Frayed Knot]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think I'd rather have seen Rose getting the help he needed years ago and making the rounds each spring to talk to players about gambling addiction than any of the things that have transpired in the last 25 years.

Tough for Rose to be in a position to speak about gambling addictions while he's still is a full-time gambler today and has never stopped being one his entire life.
He never sought help because he had no interest in getting help and he doesn't see anything wrong in what he did, stopping only occasionally to imply that there might be when he thinks saying so will get him what he wants.

[Gwreck]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate).

I don't see any room here for easing any ban.

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think I'd rather have seen Rose getting the help he needed years ago and making the rounds each spring to talk to players about gambling addiction than any of the things that have transpired in the last 25 years. Tough for Rose to be in a position to speak about gambling addictions while he's still is a full-time gambler today and has never stopped being one his entire life. He never sought help because he had no interest in getting help and he doesn't see anything wrong in what he did, stopping only occasionally to imply that there might be when he thinks saying so will get him what he wants.

I meant that if he had gotten the help he needed. If MLB confronted the root of the problem, touring the clubhouses would have been a good role. Not the case any more.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Gwreck wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate). I don't see any room here for easing any ban. (d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

As much as the word "permanently" is in there, reinstatement is clearly still possible, whether he deserves it or not.

Michael Ray Richardson was banned for life from the NBA. He still sought and obtained his re-instatement after he no longer had the skills to return, just as a point of pride.

[Frayed Knot]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I meant that if he had gotten the help he needed. If MLB confronted the root of the problem, touring the clubhouses would have been a good role. Not the case any more.

This continues to imply that MLB was the one that needed to take the initiative.
But no one can force Rose to change and he doesn't think his behavior needs changing. He gambles because he wants to not because he's powerless to quit.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Damnit, more bad stuff about Pete Rose. We need to keep the media spotlight shining brightly on the Cardinals scandal. Priorities, people!

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I meant that if he had gotten the help he needed. If MLB confronted the root of the problem, touring the clubhouses would have been a good role. Not the case any more. This continues to imply that MLB was the one that needed to take the initiative. But no one can force Rose to change and he doesn't think his behavior needs changing. He gambles because he wants to not because he's powerless to quit.

I think he IS powerless to quit. Or, at least powerless to quit without the help. I think the Josh Hamilton comparison is a fair one (with the understanding that Hamilton's addiction didn't potentially undermine the outcome of games).

I understand your point. My thought is that baseball was hurt by one of its brightest stars getting tangled up in this, and carrying the situation on for years. Would the commissioner at the time have been better off reaching out, or through the Reds reaching out, to address the situation before it got to the point that it did?

[Guest themetfairy]

I get what you're saying michigan, but I don't share your viewpoint. The rule was posted on every MLB clubhouse in the league, and he knew full well the implications of his actions. He started betting on baseball before it escalated to the point of an addiction, and I don't think that it was the Commissioner's office's place to save him from his own actions.

Pete Rose is a liar and an operator, and he's still trying to play all of us. I'm not sympathetic.

[ashie62]

Rose has admitted to gambling on the Reds, but always to win, yeah right.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure the timeline is clear (or can possibly be made clear) with regard to when his first baseball bet was made and when his bad habit had escalated to an addiction.

[MFS62]

From gwreck's post:

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

The way I read that, once is enough to ban him permanently.
How, or if, that may have later become an addiction seems moot for purposes of enforcing that regulation.

Later

[Edgy MD]

And yet, again, players banned for life have long been free to apply for re-instatement. Why grant them that right if there's to be no consideration of that application under any circumstances?

[Zvon]

As far as how this effects his chances, I was leaning towards finally letting him in. Having read this, I'm not. I have to assume that most people who were pro-Hall for Pete will react this way. The reason it changes my mind is he has had more than a chance to reveal the truth of the matter and he still hasn't.

If this info came out 20 years ago I might have lumped it with the rest of his gambling and similarly been for finally letting him in. The timing of this is so crucial. But from what I read there's no agenda. It's just the way the ball bounced. If he had been voted in and then this came out...that would have been a fine mess. He made his final mistake in not coming completely clean. He had many years to do so.

[Edgy MD]

Again, I think the last place this conversation should be centered is around whether or not he is enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Pete's 74, he won't be reinstated while still alive.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think he should at least be on the Hall of Fame ballot. I think that Bonds and Clemens and those guys brought as much disgrace, and probably more, to the game than Rose did, and they're on the ballot. They don't look like they're going to get elected, and I doubt that Rose would either.

And as for that, I don't care one way or the other if Pete Rose ever gets into the Hall of Fame. That place is a mess anyway, and I'm mostly disconnected from thinking about who's in and who's not.

[Edgy MD]

The problem is that, whatever their relative sins, he's banned from baseball, and they are not. Banned from baseball means banned from the ballot.

[Benjamin Grimm]

It doesn't have to mean that.