Posted By:
Mike (18colt)Per Todd's request, I reread the agreement signed by Pete Rose and MLB pertaining to Rose's banishment. Todd asked the question pertaining to the reason for Rose's banishment if it was not gambling.
The document reads: ". . . the Commissioner of Baseball instituted an investigation of Peter Edward Rose, . . . concerning allegations that Peter Edward Rose engaged in conduct not in the best interests of baseball in violation of Rule 21, including but not limited to betting on Major League Baseball games in connection with which he had a duty to perform."
Only section (d) of Rule 21 addresses betting on games. Baseball's investigation looked into not just Rose's alleged (the agreement's word, not mine) gambling, but other potential infractions that fall under the auspices of Rule 21.
Section (f) of Rule 21 reads:
"OTHER MISCONDUCT. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as exclusively defining or otherwise limiting acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball; and any and all other acts, transactions, practices or conduct not to be in the best interests of Baseball are prohibited and shall be subject to such penalties, including permanent ineligibility, as the facts in the particular case may warrant."
Rose's association with convicted felons and reputed mobsters would certainly fit within the confines of this Section (f). The goodwill generated by Rose breaking Cobb's hit record in 1985 capped a career for one of baseball's best ambassadors. MLB could not allow one of their marquee names to drag in these individuals to potentially tarnish the image and integrity of the game. With felons and reputed mobsters mentioned in the same breath as MLB, reagrdless of any actual betting that may or may nor have occurred, the public would assume that illegal betting or game fixing was going on (much like most of the public believing that steroids run rampant, whether they actually do or not). MLB had to clean it up, and clean it up decisively in order to preserve its fanbase (The NBA had similar problems cleaning up their image of being a drug culture, but lucked out with Magic and Bird entering the draft the same time after their NCAA Finals dual).
Back to Rose, Rose could not deny that MLB had evidence to ban him under Section (f). IF MLB could've proved the gambling angle under Section (d), they would have, if for no other reason to demonstrate that no one player was above the game. But since they had holes that could be exploited under examination, they had Rose under Section (f). Why didn't Rose fight it? As said earlier, MLB had proof under Section (f), and potential proof under Section (d). There is a chance that Rose loves baseball so much that he didn't want this to drag on and on and on, and focus the attention on his battle with MLB instead of the players and the games.
Now, a few comments on the Gammons article.
Gammons wrote that Rose's timing of the release of his book was so that he could steal the spotlight away from the new HOF inductees. Yes and no. Some speculate that Rose had an agreement with Selig to not release the book for the holidays (i.e., Christmas shoppers) because the talk would spill over into the new year and interfere with the HOF announcement. Rose could have lost a lot of money there, but did it anyway. The timing of the release date of his book is AFTER the HOF's announcement. If the media hadn't leaked information, Molitor and Eckersley would have had the time they deserved to be center stage (though they will again this summer in Cooperstown). If the revelations revealed in the November 2002 meeting between Rose and Selig could be kept secret until now, is there reason to believe that an agreement between Rose and MLB also could be kept secret this long? MLB likely orchestrated when Rose could reveal all and release his book. The media frenzy, unfortunatley, couldn't control itself and wait until tomorrow.
Comments on other comments made on this thread:
If Joe Jackson was given a lifetime ban, he can't be placed on the "permanently ineligible" list after the fact. They're 2 different lists. Thus, Jackson should be HOF-eligible.
Buck Weaver had some lesser role in the Black Sox affair, but I don't recall what it was. He, too, I think should be exonerated. Didn't Jackson give the money back, but because he didn't report the game fixing by his teammates, he was guilty, too?
Another thread discusses 19th century betting practices amongst baseball players. Despite the fact that I am a Rose fan, I have to agree that IF Rose bet on baseball, he broke the rules, because the rule didn't exist until after the Black Sox scandal, whereas Cap Anson and company weren't doing anything wrong or illegal at the time they played. Apples and oranges indeed.
No one addressed my E102 question from my original reply to this thread. Page up to find it.
The point was made to differentiate between those who break baseball's rules, and those who break society's rules/laws. If a player murdered someone, baseball wouldn't have to ban the player, because society will enact its own prescribed punishment. But if the player murdered another player during the course of a game, and affected the outcome, then baseball would have to ban the player under Rule 21(f), since depending on the state the crime took place and the sentence imposed, the murderer could get out of jail someday and try to find employment in baseball. My point here is that when someone uses illegal and/or performance enhancing drugs during the season, they will affect and impact the results, records, stats, etc. of the games they take part in and should get more than the slap on the wrist they get now. If MLB really wanted to clean up, they'd just lockout the players until they got a drug policy that was effective, and impose harsh penalties for performance enhancing drug use and corked bats and other such actions that affect the outcome of games. Some big names would leave the game, records would be changed, and fans would be lost temporarily, but the game would be clean(er) again, and we could all focus on the outcomes and the players, and not the scandals.
One last thought, since this is a vintage card forum -- if someone wanted to collect just one Joe Jackson card, which would you suggest? Which is the easiest to obtain in low, low, low condition (we're not all high end card collectors due to budget restrictions)?
Thanks for the Rose thread. His supporters need to come out and support him.
A possible agreement -- reinstate Rose, allow him to be eligible for the Hall, but if he wants a baseball job, it must be in the minor leagues, and not as a manager (roving hitting instructor?)? Then Mike Schmidt can put him on his staff in Clearwater, and they can wager on golf daily. 