Posted By:
Kenny ColeComparing Pete Rose's betting on baseball with other athletes who commit crimes or do drugs is very much like comparing apples to oranges. Do both affect the integrity of the game? My answer is absolutely, although one is much more direct than the other. However, there is still a huge difference between the two.
I sincerely doubt that baseball has any specific rule against committing murder, mayhem, rape, robbery or a laundry list of various and sundry crimes. It doesn't need to because society does. Those rules are codified in the criminal statutes of every state, territory and possession in the U.S. When a baseball player commits a felony, his punishment is generally meeted out by the appropriate authorities in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, not by the Commissioner of baseball or (perish the thought) by the Player's Association.
In contrast, as the existence of Las Vegas attests, it is not necessarily illegal to bet on the outcome of a baseball game. Nonetheless, history has demonstrated time and again that betting on a sporting event has a potentially major effect on the outcome when engaged in by a participant. That's why every professional sport I am aware of has a rule against it. Its a matter of preventing an activity that is inimical to the sport and which has the capacity to destroy it in a much more direct and immediate way than off-the-field activities do.
Pete Rose is an excellent example of the difference. In that regard, I sincerely doubt that, had he not already been banned, the fact that he pled guilty to tax evasion would have resulted in his expulsion from baseball. At least it didn't for Denny McLain and Willie McCovey. Its not that baseball didn't care or that its image wasn't affected so much as it was that income tax evasion is a federal offense and is therefore properly dealt with by the feds. Conversely, betting on baseball by a baseball player is MLB's business because there is a rule against doing that which has been in effect since well before Rose started playing the game in little league.
Pete Rose does not have some sort of divine right to reinstatement or induction into the HOF. While it is true that the HOF is not filled with saints, it is also true that, at least to my knowledge, it isn't occupied by ANYONE who has openly admitted to breaking the rule prominently displayed in every professional clubhouse in America after having apparently spent the past 14 years lying about it.
I don't object to giving DESERVING people a second chance, in my opinion, Rose has not even attempted to show that he deserves such consideration. Rather, when I think of him, the old "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" adage comes to mind. Everything he does is calculated to make a buck, long-overdue confession included. I doubt that
will change if he is reinstated.
Pete Rose was a great ballplayer. He was fun to watch. It is too bad that he is now on the outside looking in. However, is also true that no one other than Pete Rose is responsible for committing the acts that led him to lead life in his "Prison Without Bars" (retail price $24.99). Although I defended him for years, I now cannot help but agree that he should remain on the outside looking in for at least the remainder of his miserable existence. That's the punishment that people who do what he did get.
Moreover, reinstating him would also have the effect of rendering the rule he broke, if not meaningless, at least much less meaningful than it is now. If Rose can get reinstated after admitting to have broken the rule, why couldn't others? How does bending the rule in favor of an "icon" like Rose affect the integrity of the game?
As someone else put it, if betting on baseball gets you expelled from the game, how does admitting that you bet on baseball get you reinstated? to my way of thinking, that's the question that needs to be answered. If someone can come up with an answer to that question which is consistent with the rules as they now stand, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I too hope he rots.