Why is the Dutchess of York even involved in this?

And more importantly, how does this affect Frank Tanana?

Finally, I don?t want to read your new book. But tell me this, when do we find out if you bet on baseball when you were a player? Do we find that out in your next book?

That's a great line.

C'mon, Larry, don't we have enough inside jokes and catch phrases? Let's let this one die, if only because every time I read it, I think about the too-similar Al Franken routine.

? August 25, 1980: At Toronto's Exhibition Stadium, Rangers P Ferguson Jenkins is arrested for possession of illegal drugs after customs officials discover an estimated $500 worth of cocaine, marijuana, and hashish in his suitcase. The arrest stuns the entire country, where Jenkins, a Canadian citizen, is considered a national hero.

If I recall Jenkins was acquitted of those charges at trial. Furthermore, I would just like to say that even if he was a drug user or addict, that in no way puts him in the same league as Pete Rose. Maybe Jenkins won't be canonized but I know of nothing that he did to mar the game of baseball as Rose did.

Your future lies totally with Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, rather than with what the public thinks of your new book.

Of course, these things ain't inseparable, now are they? Aside from that, I like Jenkins's letter.

If I recall Jenkins was acquitted of those charges at trial.

? September 8, 1980: Commissioner Bowie Kuhn suspends Ferguson Jenkins indefinitely as a result of his August 25th drug arrest in Toronto. On September 22nd, the suspension will be overturned by arbitrator Raymond Goetz, the first time ever a commissioner's decision is overruled by an arbitrator.

? December 18, 1980: Ferguson Jenkins is convicted on cocaine possession charges in a Canadian court, but has the verdict immediately erased by Judge Gerald Young because of his years of "exemplary" conduct.

I am not saying the conduct is equivalent, but Fergie really should have more respect for the concept of forgiveness. ;-)

Not saying I disagree with a word of Jenkins's letter.

But.

I would like to have seen a note of compassion from Fergie, speaking in the voice of someone who made some serious mistakes and was, ultimately, forgiven by the baseball world. Not a note related to the HOF, or reinstatement, but one meant to reach out to Rose if he should come one day to actually grasp the seriousness of what he did, and why his banishment from the game must be permanent. I mean, you can't banish the guy from life.

Not, by the way, that I (or Fergie, probably) ever expects such a moment to come from (or for) Rose. But would there be anything wrong with telling Rose that there is room for forgiveness -- though not room for him in the HOF or in organized baseball -- should it somehow happen?

Any idea of what games Rose threw? or some of his questionable managing decisions?

Jenkins and the other atheletes who were involved in drug abuse during the eighties tarnished the whole 'athelete-as-role-model' ideal that was once such an integral part of professional sports in America ... Jenkins was one of a number of athelete whose actions collectively did more damage to the integrity of sports than Rose ever did.

All right, hang on a second, here.

If indeed Jenkins was among those who tarnished the "athlete as role model" ideal, isn't it worth considering that the whole "athlete as role model" ideal was complete BS, and deserved tarnishing? How is Jenkins getting high on cocaine really any different than Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth or any other superjock from previous eras getting drunk on alcohol? Was it ever a healthy or valid thing for kids to be taught that all big-star athletes were really great people, beyond their deeds on the field?

I don't think Jenkins (or Dave Parker or Steve Howe or anyone else) getting busted for drugs did any damage at all to the "integrity" of sports. If anything those events helped sports free itself from the silly trappings of morality-play hypocrisy that sports had been stupidly wrapped in for decades. Professional athletes, as a class, should never have been considered role models for kids, or used that way by parents and other adults. Professional athletes are entertainers, doing a job for pay. Adults do kids no favors by ever presenting it as anything different than what it is, and always has been.

For Jenkins to come out as someone who has a right to condemn the morality of another is ridiculous.

I don't see anything in Jenkins' letter that is a condemnation of Rose's morality, or lack thereof. It's a condemnation of Rose's betting on baseball, lying about it, then trying to profit from (finally and supposedly) telling the truth. It's a condemation of Rose distracting attention from Molitor and Eck, and it's a condemnation of Rose damaging the game of baseball. But I don't see anything that's a moral condemnation.

No compassion for Pete, as my compassion is exhausted thinking of the World Series rings the 88 & 89 Reds would have been wearing. He threw games, kiddo's, the sleazy world of bookies lends itself to these setups.

Forgiveness doesn't benefit just the person forgiven.

<i>The quality of mercy is not strained;

Should Rose's motivations influence whether or not he should be reinstated?

Not in the least. His feelings, deeds and motivations after the fact are irrelevant. He should remain ineligible unless he can be proven innocent.

On the one hand, his supporters want him in the HOF because he is deserving; because the HOF is lacking without him in it.

That's a pretty bold statement. Pete Rose was a damn fine ballplayer, but he wasn't a Babe Ruth. He wasn't even the best player on his own team.

Here's something to chew on:

Take the exercise to other sports, and you'll end up comparing Rose with Wilt Chamberlain.

Steve,

There is absolutely no reason that professional athletes, as a class, should somehow be disqualified from the role of "role model." The problem lies in confusing the term "role model" with "great power" or "20 wins." I have no problem whatsoever seeing a Bernie Williams or Joe Morgan or Brooks Robinson as role models, being as they're exceptional performers who carry themselves well off the field as well as on it.

Your implicit point is that since athletes are mere "entertainers," that as a class they can't (by definition) be role models. Supposedly doctors would be, or nurses, or schoolteachers.

I don't know. There are plenty of doctors in it primarily for the dough, and more than a few sadistic nurses and terrible schoolteachers. Should they be role models? Is nurse Ratched a better role model than Hank Greenberg?

A "role model" is as a "role model" does. Just like Christians are "Christians" only to the extent that they apply Christ's teachings to their everyday lives, which involves a lot more than just calling themselves "Christians."

Maybe we would all agree that athletes as a group shouldn't be considered role models. If this is all you mean, fine. But the same should be said about any other profession as well. Individuals are role models, regardless of career calling.

From an ownership perspective, Rose's actions hurt one framchise. The drug crisis effected any baseball club that invested in players whose abilites were damaged by coke.

So let me get this straight. Rose's gambling only hurt the Reds, but Jenkins drug conviction affected all teams that invested in players whose careers were ruined by coke. So Rose = 1 team, but Jenkins = all of baseball.

Also, Jenkins isn't the one profiting from his transgressions and calling it remorse.

Re: #29

That's great stuff. I nominate Shakespeare for a Primey!

Pete Rose was a damn fine ballplayer, but he wasn't a Babe Ruth. He wasn't even the best player on his own team.

The first sentence is undeniably true. The second has some flaws -- per win shares, Rose was the best player on his team in 1965, 66, 67 (3-way tie), 68, 69, and 1971.

None of which is relevant to his ban from baseball, or even to his exclusion from the HOF. We never get to the question of was he good enough, since he pissed that issue away.

Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

Oh goody, another chance for a Pete Rose thread to morph into a discussion over the meaning and derogatory connotations of the word Shylock!

;-)

Jenkins and the other atheletes who were involved in drug abuse during the eighties tarnished the whole 'athelete-as-role-model' ideal that was once such an integral part of professional sports in America. I'm not condoning Rose, I certainly don't support him going into the HOF, but at least Rose's actions were the isolated activities of a troubled man.

Steve Treder's post pretty much expressed my view of how we should look at athletes. Let me make some different points about this.

First, Rose's actions were "isolated" only in the sense that baseball hasn't had a gambling problem since 1920. Before that, gambling was rampant. The reason the problem died out was precisely that the game punished those responsible by making them permanently ineligible. If that rule were changed for Pete, I seriously doubt he'd be "isolated" much longer.

Second, the "athlete as role model" ideal really has a much more limited history than you might think. Baseball players of the 1890s/1900s were generally considered scum. Players like Christy Mathewson were the exception rather than the rule. Baseball tried very hard to clean up its image and generally succeeded, but it took a while.

Third, the drug users tarnished themselves. There's no reason to tag others with their misconduct. In that sense, they are the same as Rose.

"For Jenkins to come out as someone who has a right to condemn the morality of another is ridiculous."

Um, why? Because of past transgressions? I don't see how anything Jenkins did in the past has any bearing whatsoever on the rightness or wrongness of Rose's actions. Conducting a reductio on your logic, you'd have to say an axe murderer couldn't condemn the morality of a child molester. Fergie's got just as much right to condemn Rose as anyone else.

<i>with no time off for Mothers' Day.<i>

Ewwwwwwwwww.

By most accounts, this was an isolated incident concerning one guy, not a systematic problem that threatened the entire sport. Why, then, do writers still use the stock phrase about Rose singlehandedly destroying the sanctity of a game that has endured so many greater scandals?

I'll refer you to Mark Field's post:

Rose's actions were "isolated" only in the sense that baseball hasn't had a gambling problem since 1920. Before that, gambling was rampant. The reason the problem died out was precisely that the game punished those responsible by making them permanently ineligible. If that rule were changed for Pete, I seriously doubt he'd be "isolated" much longer.

"Where does scoring with 20,000 women rank you on the character chart, anyway?"

Just making the claim makes him a real character in my book.

I skimmed the linked boxscore (in #49) expecting to see Fergie hit Rose with pitch or Rose broke up a Fergie no-hitter, or something. But there's nothing obvious (to me). What am I missing?

Will there ever be a satisfying conclusion to this whole damn Pete Rose mess that'll make everyone shut up? Rose seems determined to make himself the big story/attraction as long as he's denied enshrinement. Whether it be signing copies of the Dowd report in Cooperstown on HoF weekend or releasing his book the week that Molitor & Eck get elected he's making it all about him. I can't imagine he'd ever stop. If he gets elected, it'll be very controversial because so many are so opposed to it - including many living HoFers. I can't imagine some sort of Pete Rose controversy/issue would continue to erupt every year during HoF weekend as Rose'll still probably show up (this time to the actual ceremony) & some HoFers may stay away in protest.

Are we doomed to an eternity of Pete Rose threads?

<i>Posted 11:12 p.m., January 15, 2004 (#32) - Gold Star for Robot Boy

The way I read it, Jenkins is giving Pete a roadmap - show some understanding of what you've done (donating profits from the book is a fine, concrete suggestion) - and things might very well be different. Jenkins says from what he knows "now" he wouldn't vote for Rose, but doesn't say it's permanent.

IMHO, this is more damning towards Rose. Fergie Jenkins should know about overcoming problems than most; yet even he throws up his hands and says to Rose that he has gone too far.

Halofan, we forgave the Angels (and admired their choose of stooges) but we never forgave Steve Phillips for the reign of terror known as the Age of Maurice.

I'm with PepTech, to a point. I think Rose has another 15 years of proving remorse. One would like to think that getting figuratively slapped around by his peers - especially those like Fergie and Gaylord Perry, who have some knowledge of being disgraced - would wake Rose up and make him confront his problems. Whether or not he could then enter the HOF is another debate. I certainly don't think he should ever be allowed to work in MLB again, whatever feelings or change come over him.

I think it is unlikely he will figure it out. I've had the opportunity to know people similar to Rose in their addictive, self-destructive behavior. It is wonderful when such people pull themselves out of it with help from friends and family. I've also seen enough to know that by his age, it is pretty rare to change that dramatically.

And so I'd have to say, Chris J. (#52), that, no, we will never be rid of this topic until Pete Rose, and the generation that grew up idolzing him, are dead and gone. Perhaps in 2050, it will be an interesting book for Primer to discuss.

? I skimmed the linked boxscore (in #49) expecting to see Fergie hit Rose with pitch or Rose broke up a Fergie no-hitter, or something. But there's nothing obvious (to me). What am I missing?

Rose went 0-fer in a Fergie shutout.

This is a great line:

<i>Shakespeare never lived long enough to know about the deep-seated and long-lived antagonism of elderly men.

I watched Henry Aaron on that mock trial thing and he supported Rose, but I think he feels hoodwinked now by the stupid way Rose is carrying on. I know the feeling, I supported the delusional bastard myself for a long time.

Nice try, Mr. DuBois, but if you look around, you might notice there are very few of you left, either here or anywhere else in baseball. Gaylord's Perry spitter isn't going to make Pete Rose's betting on his own team go away.

Here's a suggestion: Build your own Hall of Fame, and elect Rose as your first member. That way he'll be in the Hall of Fame, and you'll be happy. And you'd better be, since that's the only HOF Pete Rose will ever be admitted to in any of our lifetimes. To use the most hackneyed cliche of all time: Deal with it.

I have always thought that the only avenues for Rose to get back into baseball would be either

A: 1) admit that he bet on baseball, 2) deny that he bet on Reds games, 3) claim that he agreed to the lifetime ban because he believed that would eventually be able to prove that he did not bet on Reds games (which, under Rule 21 would lead only to a one-year suspension) and 4) have some evidence that backed up his claims

B: 1) admit that he bet on baseball, 2) admit that he bet on Reds games, 3) claim that he bet equally on all Reds games (which would lead to a lifetime ban under Rule 21, but undercut the rationale, since he would have no motive to manage differently based upon his wager) and 4) claim that he agreed to the lifetime ban expecting that he would be able to eventually prove that he bet equally on all games and 5) have some evidence that backed up his claims

Since Pete Rose has now admitted that he bet on some, but not all, Reds games, I think he is sunk. Moreover, he should be. The ban on gambling works, IMO, because it is so draconian.

At worst, Rose's actions might've altered the course of some Reds games, though he claims he always placed bets on Cinncy.

The problem with liars is that they lie. His claim is worth about a bucket of warm spit.

Maybe we would all agree that athletes as a group shouldn't be considered role models. If this is all you mean, fine. But the same should be said about any other profession as well. Individuals are role models, regardless of career calling.

That's exactly what I mean. Athletes as a group have no more and no less status as role models than any other group. And people should not look to groups for role models, they should look to individuals WHOM THEY KNOW. Just about none of us really knows pro athletes or any other celebrities.

The fact is that during the 1980's America, for whatever reason, figured out that some atheletes make mistakes. They are no worse for it than others who slipped under the radar, but that doesn't change the fact that their behavior DID negatively impact sports in America.

Well, sure, but it strikes me that the real issue you're concerned with here is their damaging of the image of sports in America, and IMO that old image was phony and false and unhealthy, and needed to be damaged. Sending that fake old image to the showers was the one good thing that came out of the cocaine scandals of the 1980s.

I'm coming in late on this thread, but my 2 bits are that Jenkins probably doesn't want to talk about Pete Rose ("The media has been calling me for my opinion because I am in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. I am being asked if you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. They are calling other Hall of Famers with this same question. We don?t deserve this.").

For good or bad, Jenkins just wanted to set the record straight so the media won't hound him and get on with his life.

Hopefully, we can all do so too in a couple of weeks.

(In some ways, this Pete Rose obsession reminds me of the O.J. Simpson trial - I could never understand why some people were so viscerally involved in the thing - kind of like the Chris Rock putdown of African Americans giddy reactions when O.J. was acquited: "What the heck did we win? I'm still waiting for my O.J. price in the mail, and nothing!!").

Pete should not be blamed for the timing of the book release. That decision is made by the publisher. Once you turn that manuscript in, you have very little, if anything, to say about it.

Obvious Solution #1: Don't turn the manuscript in a couple months before HOF induction announcement.

Obvious Solution #2: Obtain contractual guarantee that book won't be released, excerpted, or leaked within one month of HOF induction announcement.

I'm no expert on the publishing industry, but Pete Rose finally acknowledging that he bet on baseball is a pretty big deal. If a publishing house had to make that guarantee as part of the book deal, I'm sure they would have. Maybe it would have cost Rose a couple hundred grand of his advance in exchange, but, hey, he's just gonna blow that money at the track, anyway.

<i>If I let all those big angry HOF'ers spank me, will all be forgiven?

Why does the Duchess of York care whether Pete Rose makes the Hall of Fame?

Pete should not be blamed for the timing of the book release. That decision is made by the publisher. Once you turn that manuscript in, you have very little, if anything, to say about it.

Normally OK, but I dunno about it in this case. There were some abnormal things going on with this book's pre-release. Didn't Neyer or someone mention how odd it was that the book was kept under such tight wraps in advance? Why would a book publisher wait until immediately after the X-mas rush to release a book? Rose is the guy that's gone to Cooperstown every summer during the induction ceremony to sign copies of the Dowd report & this strikes me as an extention of that. I'd assume he had more leverage in book negotiations than a normal author would because any publisher with 1/10 of a brain would know that a book by Pete Rose where he admits to betting on baseball would sell pretty well.

Let's assume our starting point is he's not getting into the HOF, and there's no place for him in baseball. From that premise -- with Rose paying the appropriate (and necessary) price for what he did -- shouldn't there be room for the possibility of forgiveness? I mean, worse men than Pete Rose have come to terms with their mistakes.

I agree with Bunyon that:

I think it is unlikely he will figure it out. I've had the opportunity to know people similar to Rose in their addictive, self-destructive behavior. It is wonderful when such people pull themselves out of it with help from friends and family. I've also seen enough to know that by his age, it is pretty rare to change that dramatically.

But that doesn't mean people who know Rose, like Fergie Jenkins, shouldn't hold out the possibility of forgiveness should the unlikely come to pass.

Oh, and Halofan: No need to forgive you guys about Mo Vaughn. But the Nolan Ryan thing -- some things are beyond mercy, my friend. :-)

For anyone to think Perry has a morally superior position to Rose is laughable.

Going too far in trying to give your team an advantage is not as bad as not trying to give your team an advantage because you're concerned with your wagers.

How is that "laughable"?

Precedent, of course, is not proof, but it's worth noting that the people in charge of (and playing) baseball have considered betting on games in which you are involved to be a worse sin than throwing a spitball for ... oh, about 80 years. At least.

I'm unaware of anyone in the history of MLB arguing that a spitball is a more serious transgression than betting on games your team is playing. Anyone.

Of course, everyone in the history of MLB could be wrong, and you're right, but it's kind of presumptuous to say that their position is "laughable."

I'm kind of w/ dubois...never understood why perry gets a complete pass. the guy went into the HOF without too much trouble, from i recall. and now yall are defending him on grounds that he was just really "competitive"? what ###### garbage. he was a lifelong cheater. who knows what he or his teams would have done if he played by the rules.

i'm not gonna try to weigh perry's trangressions against rose's, but cheating undermines the integrity of the game. which is the very thing that betting on baseball does.

Posted 10:59 a.m., January 16, 2004 (#90) - Pete DuBois

For anyone to think Perry has a morally superior position to Rose is laughable.

Maybe Rose can have that put on his tombstone. You can have flowers sent to the site every day to prove your eternal loyalty.

Mommy, who defended Perry? Nobody has said he did nothing wrong. Just that he isn't as bad as Rose.

That's not "defending," that's "damning with faint praise."

never understood why perry gets a complete pass

Well, I've never understood why anyone thinks Perry "gets a complete pass." He gets no pass at all. He broke a rule, and was issued the existing punishment for it. Who ever issued him a pass?

HOF voters considered Perry's accomplishments and blemishes, and on balance, decided he was worthy of the HOF. Just as they did with many other pitchers who almost certainly doctored the ball from time to time, including Whitey Ford, Don Sutton, and Don Drysdale.

What makes Perry stick out in people's minds is that, unlike nearly every other pitcher, Perry not only didn't try to hide what he was doing, he in fact made a big show of looking like he was doing it even when he wasn't, in fact especially when he wasn't. Perry played up the whole image masterfully, cultivated it, used it as something to get inside batters' heads.

Umpires checked the balls he pitched, constantly. Umpires undressed him and searched his clothing, cap, and glove, repeatedly. The fact that he was actually busted almost never suggests that what Perry was really up to was something much more akin to an elaborate hoax than anything else.

MNP, i suppose you're right - but no one seemed to really say he _did_ do something wrong either. mentioning his "competitiveness" does seem, to me, to be defending him.

and i'm not just talking about here. perry zipped into the HOF in a couple years. why didn't the voters care?

perry's career was ending as i got into baseball, so i don't remember him playing. and i don't really remember the discussions of his career when he came up for election. was there much outcry about his possible induction?

It doesn't matter what the parents reinforce, if you see your hero spitting on a fan, the child will think spitting is an appropriate way to show disdain.

Let's just say that, as a parent, I completely disagree.

MNP, i suppose you're right - but no one seemed to really say he _did_ do something wrong either.

You're right, mommy.

Well, except for Bunyon, who said Perry had been "disgraced." Oh, and me ... I said he went too far. And Tom said he broke the rules. As did DavidPeng, who further noted that Perry was suspended for doing so.

Nearly everyone who has mentioned Perry in this thread has said he did something wrong. Again, noting that he's not as bad as Rose is simply damning with faint praise, not "defending."

It doesn't matter what the parents reinforce, if you see your hero spitting on a fan, the child will think spitting is an appropriate way to show disdain.

Let's just say that, as a parent, I completely disagree.

Steve, as a parent, you should know that "spit happens."

Now that I think about it, and the two situations aren't all that different, does anyone else find it funny that the penalty for doctoring a baseball is ejection and a lengthy suspension, but the penalty for using an illegal stick in hockey is two minutes (and a lost Stanley Cup, if you're a Kings fan)?

If I recall correctly, when the spitball was outlawed there were several pitchers who were "Grandfathered", i.e., allowed to continue to use the pitch for the remainder of their careers (Burleigh Grimes is one who comes to mind). Obviously, that would seem to indicate that the spitball was a little less of an infraction than the gambling was (don't recall any gamblers getting "Grandfathered").

And after the Clinton administration, it was part of our ingrained culture.

Which is probably a good thing. Pretty much everyone has charecter flaws. Why should we pretend otherwise?

For the Love of God, not the Gaylord Perry "analogy" again! This is one step from the Chewbacca defense.

There are minor infractions and major infractions. Messing with the equipment is a major infraction.

I'm not sure what your definition of "major infraction" is, but the penalties associated with doctoring baseballs sure don't seem to be all that major. They aren't remotely close to the penalties associated with gambling on the games.

The only difference between him and Pete is he didn't get caught.

Well, that, and the nature of his infraction.

I don't think anyone will deny that baseball considers doctoring the ball to be a major infraction.

Based on the penalties associated with doctoring a baseball, I don't think baseball considers it to be anything close to gambling.

It does seem rather odd that the Hall will accept cheaters, high cleaters and wife beaters, but they have no place for someone with a gambling problem.

If that someone with a gambling problem actually bet on games he was involved in as a player or manager, it doesn't seem the least bit odd to me at all.

I continue to be puzzled as to why people don't understand what the phrase "double-standard" means.

and i'm not just talking about here. perry zipped into the HOF in a couple years. why didn't the voters care?

Because they liked Perry and they liked the greaseball.

So do I.

I continue to be puzzled as to why people don't understand what the phrase "double-standard" means.

Hear hear. It seems that people tend either to mislabel it as "hypocrisy", or label it as always a bad thing, which it isn't.

Hear hear. It seems that people tend either to mislabel it as "hypocrisy", or label it as always a bad thing, which it isn't.

Or use it when what they really should be saying is "different standards for different actions." Of course, when you say it that way, it doesn't sound quite so bad.

"different standards for different actions"

You're right, that's a third misuse, and precisely what puts the Gaylord Perry thing in the Chewbacca realm.

Okay, what the hell is the Chewbacca defense?

Rather, I am pointing out that Perry damning Rose is, again, laughable, considering his past.

Well, that's not *quite* what you said earlier. You said, "For anyone to think Perry has a morally superior position to Rose is laughable."

Perry, in the article you linked, makes no moral judgements. He makes baseball judgements. So I assume by "morally superior," you mean in a baseball sense.

And that is NOT laughable. As I noted earlier, you'd be hard pressed to find any player, manager, coach, equipment manager, hot dog vendor, commissioner, owner, GM, scout, executive, or umpire in the history of Major League Baseball who thinks or thought that throwing a spitter was as bad as betting on a game in which you have a duty to perform. They may all be wrong, Pete, but it's pretty hard to say their position is "laughable."

While I don't think the penalty for throwing illegal pitches should be the same as gambling

If you don't think the penalty for throwing the spitter should be the same as for gambling, and you don't wish to defend Rose, maybe you should stop bringing Perry up in relation to Rose. Maybe you should ignore Rose entirely, and simply make the case for Perry (or a future Perry) being penalized in whatever way you deem appropriate.

Because as long as you keep talking about Perry in the context of Rose, as long as you keep talking about a "double-standard," as long as you keep saying it's "laughable" to suggest that what Perry did isn't as bad as what Pete Rose did, it's sure as hell going to *look* like you're defending Rose. And no productive discussion of Perry (and his type of offense) will be possible.

Don't forget the not insignificant group of us who watched baseball in the 1970s and thought that Rose was an insufferable jerk.

Then again I was a Dodgers fan and he was the enemy. But on the Reds, I was always a lot more scared of Morgan and Bench and Foster than I was of Rose.

Pete, and all unfortunate people that may have a gambling problem , are being denied a greater standard of liberty than that which baseball grants to felons and low lifes. Namely, the ability for future generations to see the good and amazing things they may have done on the field of play.

A double standard is different liberty applied to the same action. For example, it is a double standard to allow men in the locker room and not women (same action, different liberty for different people). It is a double standard to allow a 30 year-old to by beer and not to allow a 10 year-old to buy beer. It's a double-standard to allow men to vote and not to allow women to vote.

Note that some of these double standards have been deemed good by society as a whole, others not good.

It is indeed a double standard to tell Pete Rose he can't be associated with baseball and not tell the same thing to Ty Cobb or Chris Truby. The solid reasoning behind that double standard has been spelled out ad nauseam around here.

These people thought that a guy that played all out, all the time, was worthy of respect for this dedication. These people still think that these attributes of dedication and hustle are worthwhile pursuits for future generation....

But Pete's character is a myth and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

**But the questions are: (1) should baseball consider it to be a bigger violation than it currently is (2) should baseball consider gambling to be as big an infraction and (3) When someone serially commits the same major infraction does that necessitate a broader punishment.**

This is a strawman, as you assume that the behavior remains unchanged if the penalties are changed. That is, you assume that Perry would have thrown as many spitballs if a lifetime banishment was the penalty. This is akin to saying that I would have the same number of speeding tickets if the penalty was the same as that for breaking and entering. That is absurd!

ME: I continue to be puzzled as to why people don't understand what the phrase "double-standard" means.

Clarence: Pete, and all unfortunate people that may have a gambling problem , are being denied a greater standard of liberty than that which baseball grants to felons and low lifes. Namely, the ability for future generations to see the good and amazing things they may have done on the field of play.

Ah, that's not how you used the phrase "double-standard" the first time; in #116. I assume that, since you didn't defend the way you used it there, you stipulate that it was improper usage. Fantasic.

Now, moving on to what I quoted above: what the heck?

First, "the ability for future generations" doesn't sound like something Rose is being denied. It sounds like something future generations are being denied.

Second, Rose being denied that "greater standard of liberty" is not a "double-standard." It is two different standards for different actions.

Let me give you an example of what would be a "double-standard." Maybe this will help:

Let's say that tomorrow, you and I each steal a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon from a 7-11. We're both arrested, tried, and convicted. We both have the same prior arrest record (none.) The circumstances are exactly the same. You get a year in jail, I get 3 days. That's a "double-standard."

But if I stole a case of Pabst, and you stole $3,000 from the safe under the counter, and you got more jail time than I got ... that's NOT a "double-standard."

Make sense?

Based on the penalties associated with doctoring a baseball, I don't think baseball considers it to be anything close to gambling.

But the questions are: (1) should baseball consider it to be a bigger violation than it currently is (2) should baseball consider gambling to be as big an infraction and (3) When someone serially commits the same major infraction does that necessitate a broader punishment.

I don't have any problem concluding that baseball should consider gambling a much bigger infraction than throwing a spitball (I mean gambling on games in which the player has a duty to perform). This is just not a close call.

As for increasing the penalty for spitballs, I'm inclined to think it's not necessary. Baseball now has 83 years of experience with the rule. There's no evidence that breaking the rule is widespread; in fact, I can't recall any violations in the last 10 years. Given this history, I think the system of enforcement, including the penalties, is working acceptably well.

Pete, and all unfortunate people that may have a gambling problem , are being denied a greater standard of liberty than that which baseball grants to felons and low lifes. Namely, the ability for future generations to see the good and amazing things they may have done on the field of play.

Baseball is not denying that to anyone. They just are refusing to sponsor it. There is a difference there.

You appear to believe that this comment somehow indicates a "double standard". It does not. For the umpteenth time, not all offenses are equally serious. Gambling (see above) is more serious than other offenses and deserves a greater penalty.

These people thought that a guy that played all out, all the time, was worthy of respect for this dedication.

I doubt anyone would deny that playing all out is worthy of respect. Where I think most of us jump off the train is with the claim that Rose was somehow unique in this regard. Many players did this; they just weren't as conspicuous about it as Pete. Just like lots of people are religious without making a big deal of it in public. To some of us, the showiness actually detracted from the respect. Quiet professionalism has its fans too.

Clarence writes first:

If you question Pete's actions as a manager, make Cincy forfeit the games when Pete managed.

And then:

However, Pete's accomplishments as a player isn't related to his gambling. Denying him entry into the Hall of Fame is entirely punitive.

So in other words, Pete Rose violated baseball's most sacred rule: Don't bet on games which involve your own team.

And Clarence says: Make the Reds forfeit those games, but let Pete into the Hall of Fame!

This may possibly be the most idiotic argument ever offered in the entire history of Clutch Hits. If only Randal had saved his bullet for this entirely worthy occasion.

fracas - see link.

I am often annoyed by South Park, but occasionally their over-the-top satire works.

That's a good point, Andy. I'm unable to imagine something a player or manager could do that would result in the forfeit of dozens (scores? hundreds?) of games that WOULDN'T also justify that player or manager being declared forever ineligible. Weird.

I believe Clarence was trying to distinguish between Rose's actions as manager and his actions as player. Punish the one, reward the other.

The problem is, as Steve Treder pointed out days ago, Pete is only one person. It's hard to punish the team for his infraction while rewarding the person in another case.

fracas, see the homepage link. Essentially, the defense is this (it pretty much works for any case):

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

None of this makes sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

**Rose represents a class of players that have gambling problems. **

Actually, Rose represents a class of players that bet on baseball games in which they had a duty to perform. There are no MLB rules directed toward anyone with a gambling problem.

Rose represents a class of players that have gambling problems.

No, he does not. He represents a class of players that were proven to have gambled on games they were involved in, engaged in a public campaign of smearing and lies, and continued to engage in gambling activity. As far as I know, this class of players has one member.

The persons with gambling addictions are not allowed the liberty to enter into the Hall of Fame based on their playing performance.

Not true. It's not his status as a gambling addict that prevents him from being elected, it's the act of betting on baseball that prevents him from being elected. Had he only bet on football and basketball, he's also still be eligible.

Just like we have not made it criminal for an alcoholic to drive, and in most states it is not illegal to drive drunk on private property; rather, it is illegal to be drunk and drive on a public road. It's not the status, it's the act.

I need to know where you hustle-haters stand.

I presume that if Pete had not gambled, you would support his candidacy? Is this a bad assumption. Do you believe that absent gambling, Pete still doesn't belong in the Hall?

Without the gambling, he's a slam dunk HOFer. I don't where you'd get the idea that anyone here wouldn't agree.

But there was the gambling. And that alone disqualifies him from the Hall of Fame.

As I said to Pete DuBois, why don't you just start your own Hall of Fame? Pete Rose can be your first member. Hell, you can admit Eddie Cicotte if you want. And kick out Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford. Be my guest.

Just leave the real Hall of Fame alone.

**Objectively, the cheater probably has a larger impact on the game than what is perceived, and the gambler a smaller impact on the game than what is perceived.**

First off, please note that I assume you define "objectively" as "it is my opinion."

Second, in view of the managers ability to select and change lineups, determine defensive placement, and manipulate batter and pitcher matchups, then "objectively," a manager who gambles on the games that he is managing has an enormous impact on the game.

WalkOffIBB and David Gee beat me by 8 minutes. Ah, well. What they said.

**Objectively, the cheater probably has a larger impact on the game than what is perceived, and the gambler a smaller impact on the game than what is perceived.**

First off, please note that I assume you define "objectively" as "it is my opinion."

Second, in view of the managers ability to select and change lineups, determine defensive placement, and manipulate batter and pitcher matchups, then "objectively," a manager who gambles on the games that he is managing has an enormous impact on the game.

But the character clause in voting has been exercised by HOF voters in the past.

There was no prohibition against Joe Jackson when he was eligible. He just didn't get enough votes. Obviously the voters at the time didn't think his character merited consideration.

I don't think there were a whole lot of Hal Chase votes either although he was considered an extremely good player in his day.

**While there are no rules, there is an environment of intolerance. If a person has a gambling problem, it would likely manifest itself in this manner. Wouldn't you think a first offense would be a suspension and mandatory rehabilitation? Of all these former players condemning Pete, how many of them say they talked to Pete about his problems? If Mario Soto, Joe Morgan, or Bart Giamatti say they urged Pete to get counseling then there is a slightly different story (although not different enough to support the punishment of a lifetime ban.)**

Actually, they did. Or at least Giamatti and MLB. Pete turned it down. See link at home page.

Clarence! It's *ridiculous* to ask those questions. The only rule that matters is the one on the books. It was on the books when Rose violated the rule. Don't postulate a hypothetical fantasy world with different rules and then use a response consonant with the new rules as evidence of intellectual dishonesty.

The whole reason most people at Primer think he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame is because of the rules violations. If he's eligible, then he gets voted on the same way as any other eligible candidate. It's the magic of the process model.

As someone who has urged us to separate the questions of forgiving Rose (which I think we should be willing to do, in the unlikely event he eventually finds genuine remorse and contrition) and reinstating Rose (which should never happen), I think there's just one key thing that needs to be kept in mind. Ask yourself this question:

If Pete Rose is reinstated and/or makes it into the Hall of Fame, do you think it would be more or less likely that sometime thereafter, baseball will be victimized by another serious scandal involving betting?

I think the answer is obvious: if the penalty for this offense is made less draconian, it is more likely to recur. I hope this doesn't set off Harvey's Lawyer Avoidance and Detection Meter, but there might be situations where competing priorities would lead us to be willing to reduce a penalty for a crime even if we know it might lead to an increase in the occurrence of the crime. Showing mercy might even be one of them. BUT, in this instance, with this particular offense for this sport, avoiding future occurrences of this crime is such a high priority that it simply must override any competing concerns or arguments.

The punishment here is, certainly, harsh. But enforcing it to the hilt is justified not just for the sake of the fact that it was the rule. If that were all there was to the argument, it'd be pretty hollow. But it isn't. Strict enforcement is justified because of the critical underlying purpose served by this specific rule.

The appropriate modern day analogy to Gaylord Perry is Sammy Sosa and his corked bat, not Pete Rose. Sammy got caught and suspended one time. Just like Perry. Now there will always be speculation about how many other times Sammy used a corked bat, but I imagine that this will be the only time he will be caught. Now if you think that Sammy's use of a corked bat is a similar infraction to betting on a game that he played in then we really have no basis for having a discussion. That's what is happening here. We are trying to have a discussion even though we can't even agree on the basis of the discussion, which is that betting on your team is worse than doctoring a bat or baseball.

I personally find it hard to believe that in 80 or so years of baseball, there has only been one other player or manager in Pete Rose's position.

There may have been someone else as well, and there may not. Of course none of us knows.

The one thing we do know, with certainty, is that in over 80 years of major league baseball, there has been only one individual found to have been doing what Pete Rose did (and to have admitted to doing it, besides). That individual was Pete Rose.

But is the proper punishment a lifetime ban? I don't think that is the appropriate remedy.

What do you think would be a more appropriate remedy?

Personally, I think a lifetime ban is a precisely fair and appropriate remedy, and by all accounts, it has served its purpose very well of strongly discouraging players and managers from engaging in betting for the past 80+ years. As far as we know, Rose is the only person idiotic enough to blatantly violate the rule.

do need to know where the anti-Pete crowd stands. So in continuing this line of thought, I would ask Andy and anyone who shares his opinion that "But there was the gambling. And that alone disqualifies him from the Hall of Fame."

these questions:

If the MLB penalty for a gambling first offense was a five year suspension, would you still think that Pete doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame?

and

If MLB decides to reinstate Rose, do you believe he belongs in the Hall of Fame?

In order:

1. If the MLB penalty for a first time offense of betting on a game involving your own team were only a 5 year suspension, I know one thing: there'd be more than one Pete Rose. But no, I'd never admit anyone who did what Rose did to the HOF. Ever. Period.

2. No. And I don't think that the writers would, either. And once the decision passes to the Veterans Committee, Rose has zero per cent chance.

Once again: Rose belongs in the Hall of Statistics, where character doesn't matter. He belongs in the Hall of Hustle, where character doesn't matter. He belongs in the Hall of Hustlers, where character definitely doesn't matter, at least by the usual definition of the word. And maybe he belongs on a Hallmark greeting card for people celebrating their 4256th birthday or their 4256th piece of furry feline.

Just keep him out of Cooperstown.

He represents a class of players that were proven to have gambled on games they were involved in, engaged in a public campaign of smearing and lies, and continued to engage in gambling activity. As far as I know, this class of players has one member.

Characteristics (2) and (3) would apply to just about any gambler I know.

I doubt that every gambler you know goes on a personal crusade smearing the names of the people who accused them of such, in print, on television and on the radio, but what does that have to do with anything anyway? What do other gamblers have to do with this? Those gamblers have to take their lumps in life too, including losing jobs, spouses, houses....

As for characterstic number 1, I personally find it hard to believe that in 80 or so years of baseball, there has only been one other player or manager in Pete Rose's position. Obviously, I can't prove otherwise.

You seem to be an articulate person. How you can come up with stuff like that is beyond me.

It is irrelevant how many other players have gambled on baseball. They are all subject to Rule 21, and thus should have been or should be ruled permanently ineligible. Every last one of them that broke the rule. If there is widespread breakage of this rule with selective enforcement, there is a serious problem.

But should it, that's the essence of the question. Is gambling so bad that we should take a person that has an addiction and punish him for a lifetime.

He wasn't punished for his lifetime. He was basically fired for engaging in a serious form of conflict of interest and for engaging in a serious violation of his professional obligations. People get fired from their jobs all the time for stuff like this, and most of them without a clause saying they can apply for reinstatement after a year.

It amazes me that people talk about this like it's some kind of horrible, draconian punishment, that Rose was drawn and quartered for what he did. He was sacked, precisely as indicated by the clearly defined rules of his workplace.

What Pete Rose did was wrong and terribly unfortunate for both him and the game of baseball. But is the proper punishment a lifetime ban? I don't think that is the appropriate remedy

It's not a lifetime ban. It's permanent ineligibility, with the possibility of applying for reinstatement after one year, an opportunity that Rose wiped his ass with, and continues to do so.

**I don't believe that the punishment for a first offense gambling ban should be a lifetime suspension.**

I'm sorry, but this a complete misrepresentation of Rose. He gambled multiple times on the Reds while managing (and probably while playing). Just because he was caught only after all that time does not mean we can sweep them all into the "first offense" category. I can think of no rule or law where there are not ar not large differences in punishment for multiple violations as opposed to one such violation.

Yeah, that's like arresting someone who has committed multiple murders, that you can prove, and calling it one offense. It was many offenses. It was just one punishment.

One of the arguments people are using against Rose (and Clarence) is that he gambled LOTS OF TIMES on games, which justifies a lifetime ban. This brings up an interesting hypothetical: would you then still be in favor of a lifetime ban if someone did it just once? I understand we have a rule that says you're gone forever, but do you agree with the rule in this example? If you do, then it would appear your argument against Rose and Clarence is mistaken; it shouldn't matter how many times someone does it, they're gone forever for the first offense.

I think the penalty for gambling is a bit too harsh and there seem to be more effective and less draconian means to achieve baseball's general purpose.

You keep saying this, but you haven't specified at all what the more effective and less draconian means might be, nor have you provided any explanation of how these alternative means would achieve baseball's general purpose.

Pete Rose the actual specific individual human being has provided utterly no reason for anyone to offer him anything close to compassion or forgiveness. Even if he did (or, highly unlikely, actually ever does), no one (certainly not you) has provided any reason to suggest that the punishment that MLB has had in place for 80+ years for the transgression he committed is anything other than quite effective as a deterrent, and quite reasonable in its severity.

I'm sure I echo the sentiments of many when I say that unless and until anyone offers a more credible argument in favor of leniency for Rose than those which we have seen so far, there is really no point in continuing this very wearisome discussion.

Clarence, I've had personal experience with compulsive gamblers far more personal than that, and think I know them pretty well.

In order for an addict to fix his life, he has to accept that he has a problem, make amends, you know, that twelve steps stuff. Even those who do these things often lose important things in their lives: wives, children, jobs, homes. Sometimes the damage is done and redemption can't fix it. Recovery is more of a starting over process than it is correction of the past.

In Rose's case, he hasn't even gone through the most basic steps for recovery, so how could one possibly even begin to consider it for him? NOTHING he has done recently represents the slightest progress on that front. In fact, he has done nothing but expose himself as a complete hustler. His half-assed admission of wrongdoing was clearly done ONLY to get back into baseball, so it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The time for Rose to fix things was 14 years ago, or perhaps even 10-12 years ago, whenever it was that he got out of jail. If he had admitted wrongdoing and straightened himself out (meaning no more gambling, legal or illegal), then baseball certainly would have accepted his application for reinstatement, and I would have had no problem with it.

But 14 years is just too long. The bridges are burned, and particularly after this disgusting episode where he has used admission of guilt as payment for reinstatement and parlayed it into a lucrative book contract, there is no way that MLB should even consider reinstatement.

From the perspective of someone who is in a relationship with a compulsive gambler, and we can view MLB's relationship that way, after this kind of behavior you have to just cut yourself off from that person and not leave any doors open to his return. If Rose turns himself around today and after ten years or so of living the life of a saint comes back and asks to be reinstated, should MLB consider it? I guess they could, but it would be unhealthy for MLB to work with him on that front NOW or even consider it hypothetically. MLB should consider the ties to have been cut permanently. Leaving the door open is a matter of inviting manipulation and abuse. Refusing to leave the door open is not a matter of hatred, it's a matter of survival and protecting yourself.

At this time, Rose needs to retreat within himself and fix his own problems. The idea that Tony Perez or Joe Morgan could have or should have helped him is ridiculous. He's on his own, as is essentially every addict. The only role someone like Perez or Morgan could have played was to tell him he had a problem and be there for him once he started on the road to recovery, and I'm guessing that many people told Pete he had a problem.

And please, your attempt to misrepresent people as "hustle haters" is one of the crappiest rhetorical ploys I've ever seen. Give it a rest. I don't hate Pete Rose, and have no reason to. I think he is a man with a compulsive gambling problem and a man with some otherwise serious character flaws, a dangerous combination. The interaction between these two things has led to some very contemptuous behavior. Clearly, his athletic success shows that there are some very fine aspects to his character, but as was stated elsewhere, you can't separate those two things, and we have no choice but to hold him in some degree of contempt.

Just one comment:

Using the phrase "having a gambling problem" to describe Pete Rose is like using the phrase "having a lighter problem" to describe someone who plays with matches in a fireworks factory.

In fact, he has done nothing but expose himself as a complete hustler.

Well sure, that's his nickname isn't it? Unless you mean... oh my God... could it be that Rose exposed himself in Hustler?!?

The NBA and the NFL are the most bet upon sports leagues.

Yes.

Over the last 80 years, neither of these sports have had to institute a death penalty to achieve a deterrence to gambling.

Really? I see no basis for your assumption that these sports have achieved a sufficient deterrence to gambling. It would seem, based simply on the Schlichter and Jordan cases alone, that they have failed to do so.

Its simply not fair to punish someone in perpetuity for some wrongdoings.

This obviously is the essence of your argument, and obviously your belief is that the wrongdoings that Rose committed are among those for which it is "simply not fair to punish someone in perpetuity." Presumably you believe that there might be some wrongdoings that would merit perpetual punishment, but Rose's aren't among them.

I just simply disagree with this, both on philosphical and practical grounds. I perceive nothing to be gained from changing baseball's stance on gambling by participants -- and certainly nothing to be gained by rescinding the punishment already meted out to an offender who has already committed the offense. I perceive no degree of unfairness or "overly draconian" nature to the punishment meted to Rose for his offense.

Since our disagreement appears to be on a fundamental, principle level, I won't continue to pursue the matter with you. I will agree to disagree.

For a first offense - Mandatory counseling. If on a game with duty to perform - 3 year suspension

Here's my suggested response: the player is ruled ineligible, with the opportunity to be reinstated after one year if he has shown that he has rehabilitated himself and is no longer a threat to engage in gambling activity.

Your response is merely a punishment, and offers no incentive to the offender to correct his behavior. After three years, he's back whether the counselling worked or not. Why would you just re-open the door with no stipulation of rehabilitation? You seem fixated on this as primarily a punishment for misbehavior. IT'S NOT. It's a response to keep people gambling on the game out of the game.

My response actually stipulates a shorter period of removal than yours, and it provides that incentive to rehabilitate, plus it protects the game from the threat that individual presents. If he is still gambling after one year or perhaps judged to be a threat to gamble, he stays out. If not and he is judged to have been fully rehabilitated, he's back in.

I guess I don't need to point out that my solution is what was offered to Rose, and completely consistent with the MLB rules as they currently stand.

(Personally, I think one year is too short, and your three year ban is probably better. However, if the offender can prove rehabilitation in one year, I see no reason not to reinstate. If his case is not convincing, he could apply again the next year, and so on. Maybe it would take three years, maybe it would take five).