Pete Rose

[Frayed Knot]

Grimm is on track in the sense that the banned list was essentially a prison built for one man and the attachment that no one on the banned list be eligible for Cooperstown was a move seemingly made because the higher ups at MLB and at the HoF (those two are frequently treated as if one in the same in this whole Rose drama though they distinctly are not) were afraid that, if given the chance, the writers might just go ahead and vote him in even on the heels of the ban & the Dowd report. And indeed some writers were pissed off at having the opportunity to pass judgement taken away from them despite their role as being the approved gatekeepers for the previous half-century although a decent number of them (we'll never know for sure how many) wanted the ability to vote simply so they could cast a big 'NO' ballot so it's certainly not clear that he would have ever gotten in had the whole 'banned list' thing never been imposed.

[Guest themetfairy]

Zvon wrote: 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.

An excellent point. For so many years he has been making the distinction between gambling as a manager and not betting on baseball durning his unsullied playing days. I don't see how he has any credibility at all.

[Edgy MD]

Any "ban" that has a man ineligible to hand out clean towels in the clubhouse but nonetheless eligible for baseball's highest honor would certainly be toothless.

[Guest d'Kong76]

You're losing me, Edge... what is it that you want? Specifically.

[Edgy MD]

The discussion around Pete Rose to not be centered around his eligibility for the Hall of Fame, to begin with. That misses the point of what a ban means, and it artificially changes the stakes of what reinstatement would mean.

Beyond that, I disagree with the notion that, by definition, a lifetime ban cannot be lifted. This just isn't true, as evidenced by the fact that banned players are allowed to apply for reinstatement, and some indeed have successfully had their bans lifted.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I guess I don't see the point and wasted lawyeresque discussion
over a man who clearly gambled as a manager, now as a player,
and associated with organized crime. He got what he deserved and
reinstatement at this point would be criminal in my view.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'll also add, that if they do reinstate him, I'm done with MLB.

[Edgy MD]

I certainly don't mean to be lawyeresque.

I do mean to be fair and consistent and accurate and just. And I'm being pedantic, certainly. And for that I apologize. But I think it's important to point such things out. "Lifetime ban" and "permanently ineligible" means there is not automatic sunset to the penalty, but it doesn't mean that an application for reinstatement can not be entertained and even granted. Whether it should is certainly another point.

[Centerfield]

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.

Thanks for posting the rule. The way I read this rule, Pete is "ineligible" from baseball permanently.

What this means, I'm not sure, but the implication seems to be that he can never have a "duty to perform" for baseball ever again. Meaning he cannot work for MLB in any capacity.

I don't necessarily read that rule to mean he cannot appear at games, tip his hat and wave to the crowd, unless these guys are paid for such events. I also don't read that rule to mean he cannot be elected to the HOF, but the HOF and its' standards are seriously flawed in themselves.

I don't know anything about reinstatement. What would the criteria be? Contrition? Demonstrating you are reformed? To me I picture the parole scenes in Shawshank. Whatever the standard, I don't see Pete as having much of a chance. It also doesn't help that he comes across as a dick.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: I don't necessarily read that rule to mean he cannot appear at games, tip his hat and wave to the crowd, unless these guys are paid for such events.

He can appear at games. He can do so by buying a ticket just like you and I.

I also don't read that rule to mean he cannot be elected to the HOF, but the HOF and its' standards are seriously flawed in themselves.

MLB's penalty doesn't bar him. But a separate ruling by the HoF some two years after the ban said that anyone on baseball's 'ineligible' list (a list that consists of all players named Peter Edward Rose Sr) would also be ineligible for HoF's ballot.

[Edgy MD]

Centerfield wrote: What would the criteria be? Contrition? Demonstrating you are reformed? To me I picture the parole scenes in Shawshank. Whatever the standard, I don't see Pete as having much of a chance. It also doesn't help that he comes across as a dick.

That's it, isn't it? To me, the criteria are not as important as MLB being explicit about them. "Thanks for your application, Mr. Rose, but as far as we're concerned, we cannot consider your application until we have documentation that you've attended Gambler's Anonymous meetings at least weekly for a period of at least five years. We additionally demand you open your books for a period of the same to an auditor of MLB's choosing but at your own expense. We would additionally like to see you climb the Matterhorn; cure Ebola; and come up with a cheap, abundant clean-burning energy alternative."

They can be reasonable criteria, they can be unreasonable. Simple or hard. But at least he'll know what he has to do, he'll either do it or not, and we can move on from an argument where we're all talking about something different.

Certainly the courts work this way. Where I think Shawshank Redemption is relevant is the importance of hope. Redemption shouldn't be impossible for anybody. That doesn't mean it should be easy or he'll pursue it. But not being clear about the what he would have to do has served him and baseball poorly.

[Guest themetfairy]

It's not a question of MLB not giving him clear criteria. It's that he has never been able to demonstrate any level of sincerity or trustworthiness. Those have to be part and parcel of any discussion of reinstatement, and IMO he's never going to be able to show those qualities.

He broke a cardinal rule of baseball, as a manager and apparently also as a player, and he signed off on his lifetime ban in order to keep the evidence of his deeds from being publicized. I can't see how MLB is the bad guy in this scenario.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Can I get an amen for sister fairy!

[Edgy MD]

themetfairy wrote: It's not a question of MLB not giving him clear criteria.

Lindsay Lohan knew what she had to do to get into society's good graces. It seems to me that ballplayers should have the same roadmap.

themetfairy wrote: It's that he has never been able to demonstrate any level of sincerity or trustworthiness.

Well, yeah, he's a jerk who's been morally adrift for a long time. I don't think any of us would argue.

themetfairy wrote: Those have to be part and parcel of any discussion of reinstatement, and IMO he's never going to be able to show those qualities.

Exactly. Here, you are setting criteria. Demonstrate sincerity and trustworthiness.

If he's not going to meet them, he's not. That doesn't mean there's no point in setting them. Else, they are arbitrary, and there's no justice in that. For him or any person that preceded or follows him before baseball's system of justice. Steinbrenner's ban is lifted, his is not. Why? I don't know. What were the criteria? Nobody knows.

themetfairy wrote: He broke a cardinal rule of baseball, as a manager and apparently also as a player, and he signed off on his lifetime ban in order to keep the evidence of his deeds from being publicized. I can't see how MLB is the bad guy in this scenario.

I don't think it's an accurate characterization of my point to suggest that I'm arguing "MLB is the bad guy." Rose's sins are indeed clear.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Lindsay Lohan? Jeezalou!
Do you really think that Pete has gotten an unfair shake in
all of this? Really?

[Guest themetfairy]

Lindsay Lohan is never going to be a part of MLB either.

You're reaching, and you know it. He signed off on this ban while represented by counsel in the face of more evidence than will ever be made public. And now we're learning that he gambled on baseball while he was a player, which is something that he has lied about for the past twenty or so years.

There is nothing that convinces me that his lifetime ban was unwarranted or that it should be reversed. If you feel otherwise then I will respectfully disagree with you.

[Edgy MD]

Lindsay Lohan? Jeezalou!

Sorry. I'm not sure why that upset you. I'm trying to contrast one legally system with another.

Do you really think that Pete has gotten an unfair shake in all of this? Really?

Just because he's guilty doesn't mean the system is just or open or isn't arbitrary.

[Guest themetfairy]

Edgy MD wrote: Lindsay Lohan? Jeezalou! Sorry. I'm not sure why that upset you. I'm trying to contrast one legally system with another.

Legal system?

MLB is in no way a legal system. It's more akin to a private employer who has the right to set its own rules of employment subject to employment laws and collective bargaining agreements.

[metsmarathon]

i wonder, seriously wonder, how much the news of pete's having gambled on actual baseball games while he was an actual player has really changed hte opinions of anyone.

were there really a lot of people out there who honestly and truly believed that pete rose never gambled on baseball games while he was a player and should have been reinstated and allowed into the hall many times over, and are now shocked SHOCKED! and appalled that he actually did bet on baseball and hope against hope that he's not even allowed to pass within sight of a little league field?

i think the most likely course is that those who were the most adamant and ardent pete supporters will find a way to accomodate the news into their worldview, to ameliorate its implications and find room for allowing him to be associated with the game and inducted into the hall.

i also find it ludicrous that there are people out there who are more willing to forgive pete rose of his infraction than they are to forgive barry bonds, arod, and the gaggle of pedders of theirs, despite one side threatening to undermine the integrity and vailidity of the entire contest, and the other side doing their utmost (to the point of going too far) to try to win.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I'm not upset. I'm baffled.

[Guest themetfairy]

Bart Giamatti's son Marcus' words last year

This dilemma isn�t about how great a player Mr. Rose was, and it also has nothing to do with today�s steroid debacle, or whether Mr. Rose thinks those accused of drug use belong in the Hall Of Fame. It�s about a broken rule. It�s about arrogance. The arrogance to stomp on the heart of the game by committing baseball�s cardinal sin: betting on the game. And then somehow believing that you are above the game itself � and should be given a pass. (It should be noted that my father treated Mr. Rose, a veteran star, with the same force that he would have treated a small time rookie, proving to Mr. Rose that he was not in fact bigger than the game). Making matters more complicated, Mr. Rose chose to vehemently deny his actions for fifteen years, blaming others for his plight. And what�s really comical and obvious is that when it was suddenly convenient for him, he did an about face, sort of confessed, and expected to be coddled� and given that pass again�all the while, ironically, disrespecting the pearl that he�d been so blessed to have been handed. True remorse would mean having the strength to get help, and turn your mistake into something positive. Like spreading the word to kids about the dangers of this disease called gambling. But all of this would take true effort. True courage. And without those, there is no second chance. Mr. Rose�s belligerence and actions continue to stain the game, as my father said. These principles and standards of good citizenry that Mr. Rose and those who stand with him seem so oblivious to, should matter. They mattered to my father.

[Edgy MD]

themetfairy wrote: You're reaching, and you know it.

For what?

themetfairy wrote: He signed off on this ban while represented by counsel in the face of more evidence than will ever be made public.

I certainly don't argue with that.

themetfairy wrote: And now we're learning that he gambled on baseball while he was a player, which is something that he has lied about for the past twenty or so years.

I don't and haven't argued with any of this.

themetfairy wrote: There is nothing that convinces me that his lifetime ban was unwarranted or that it should be reversed. If you feel otherwise then I will respectfully disagree with you.

I certainly haven't argued that at all. Does anybody else think I have?

Legal system. System of penalties and justice.

Among the other things I haven't argued is that MLB "is" a legal system. But they have a system of discipline and penalties which we are now discussing. I think their system of discipline should be just and open and modeled on best practices and not arbitrary. I think it serves the game and the employees and the fans well.

I certainly agree with Marcus Giammatti. He's setting specific criteria for Rose to pursue. ("And without those, there is no second chance.") Good for him.

[Centerfield]

Perhaps it is easier to take Pete Rose out of the equation.

I think what Edgy is asking is for MLB to come out and state what criteria, if any, will be necessary for anyone declared permanently ineligible to seek reinstatement. Or to affirmatively state "There will be no reinstatement."

Something like "Any individual declared permanently ineligible may reek reinstatement after X number of years by appealing to panel, comprised of Important Person #1, Important Person #2 and headed by Super Important Person Number 3. Criteria considered shall be (a) how much of a dick you are ( how much charity work you have done and © how much money MLB can make from your reinstatement. The decision of the panel shall be at the panel's sole discretion and shall be final."

In other words, set concrete criteria for the completely subjective process.

[Centerfield]

Centerfield wrote: Any individual declared permanently ineligible may reek reinstatement after X number of years...

There I go fucking things up in front of Grammarly.

I should be declared permanently ineligible.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I get what you're trying to say Edgy, and I think you have a good point. It seems that that ship has long sailed for both Rose and MLB, but setting some criteria should be a goal for MLB for future cases. Say, completely hypothetically, what a team in Missouri would have to do be reinstated into good graces after being busted by the FBI for hacking into the databases of another team in Texas.

[Guest themetfairy]

The agreement signed by Rose, negotiated by and in the presence of his attorneys, states the following -

b. Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement.

Thus, he negotiated away any right to challenge the process for any application for reinstatement. Apparently in August 1989 this issue was considered and included in the agreement.

[batmagadanleadoff]

For the sake of being contrary, the agreement contains this key clause:

Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.

[Guest Mets Guy in Michigan]

d'Kong76 wrote: I'll also add, that if they do reinstate him, I'm done with MLB.

Dude, seriously? All the crap that has gone down with strikes, steroids, tied All-Star Games and players no longer wearing stirrups, ticket prices based on the quality of the opponent, MLB condoning and profiting from scalping through StubHub, the DH, those "graphite" Blue jays uniforms and this sends you packing?

I understand Edgy's point.

I've written about "zero tolerance" rules in schools, and having no wiggle room usually creates more problems that you expect. That's how you get goofball school boards expelling third-graders for bringing a plastic butter knife to school. You need to be able to look at each situation on its merits.

I understand the reason for a heavy penalty for dealing with gamblers. We also, today, have situations where MLB owners are involved with casinos.

As I've said -- and I realize you guys don't agree with me -- I think MLB mishandled this situation back in 1989 and nothing today can change that.

What would reinstatement mean today? If Pete's in his mid-70s he's not coming back to manage, coach or do anything else on the field in a meaningful way. He'd he allowed to appear on the field on events like Reds Hall of Fame days and so on. Believe it or not, he's still HUGE in Cincy.

If MLB wants to allow him to attend events like that, and set the conditions where he'd talk about these personal demons and use it all as a teachable moment and stress that he'd never have a role beyond such appearances, I'm fine with that. (And I agree, just because he'd be eligible for the Hall doesn't mean he'd be elected. If these buffoons won't elect someone like Mike Piazza based on back acne, they won't elect Pete.

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: For the sake of being contrary, the agreement contains this key clause: Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.

At which point Giamatti stated, during the announcement of said agreement, that, yeah, in his view Pete bet on baseball. That statement in particular ticked Rose off.

Giamatti went on to make several statements about Rose 'demonstrating a change in his ways' as examples of things that could influence a theoretical future reinstatement but there were no specific requirements laid out and of course Giamatti was dead within a few days. Rose would go on to make no attempts whatsoever to change or even be open to the idea that he had anything in his life was in need of changing.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Dude, seriously? All the crap that has gone down with strikes, steroids, tied All-Star Games and players no longer wearing stirrups, ticket prices based on the quality of the opponent, MLB condoning and profiting from scalping through StubHub, the DH, those "graphite" Blue jays uniforms and this sends you packing?

I'm probably full of crap, but it's a safe statement. There is
no way he's getting reinstated.