What is the Deal with Pete Rose?

Jan Larson

No one ever said former major league baseball star Pete Rose was the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when he plea-bargained for baseball's "death penalty," permanent ineligibility, with former baseball commissioner A. Bartlett Giamati in 1989, it seems that Rose didn't realize that there are no "do overs" once one receives a lethal injection.

Major League Baseball rule 21 states, "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."

Rose, subject of allegations that he bet on baseball, agreed [1] to a permanent ban from baseball, with no admission of guilt, in return for commissioner Giamati's agreement to conclude the matter.

Rose accepted baseball's ultimate punishment while admitting no crime.

For the past 14 years, Rose, the major league all-time hits leader, has steadfastly held to the position that he never bet on baseball, despite substantial evidence [2] to the contrary.

In his recently published book, My Prison Without Bars, Rose has finally come clean and admitted that he did, in fact, bet on baseball while serving as manager of the Cincinnati Reds. He is now making the rounds, hawking the book and attempting to solicit public support for his reinstatement to baseball by commissioner Bud Selig.

Should Rose receive a lesser penalty now that he acknowledges a crime he denied for 14 years?

Rose was a hard-nosed, win at all costs, player. He excelled at baseball despite average ability through hard work and hustle, thus the nickname "Charlie Hustle." He continues to come across in public as one who tries to win at all costs. He now claims remorse for his gambling, but more specifically, he says he's sorry for lying about his gambling, and asks for a "second chance."

Rose isn't coming clean simply to clear his conscience. He is coming clean to get something in return, his reinstatement to baseball and to regain eligibility for induction into the baseball Hall of Fame.

The timing of Rose's book release is curious. His book was released the same week that the latest baseball Hall of Fame inductees, Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor, were announced, stealing media coverage from two great players. Why? Because this is all about Pete.

Rose doesn't seem to understand that his crime wasn't lying for 14 years, it was the act of placing bets on major league baseball games. The eight members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox, the infamous "Black Sox," charged with conspiring with gamblers to fix the 1919 World Series were all permanently banned from baseball despite the fact that they were exonerated in a court of law. The best of those eight, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson [3] has been barred from Hall of Fame consideration since. Jackson has not been reinstated despite the fact that he died in 1951.

Rose thinks that baseball should toss aside an eighty plus year precedent just for him. His pleadings for forgiveness ring hollow when it appears that his motive is selfish.

Rose thinks that Americans can forgive him for his 14 years of lying. I believe he is right about that. He also believes that by admitting to the commission of the crime he will be absolved of responsibility for that crime. Admitting to murder does not let one go free. It is the same for gambling on major league baseball.

Permanently ineligible. I don't know what could be clearer than that.


--
[1] http://www.dowdreport.com/agreement.pdf
[2] http://www.dowdreport.com/
[3] http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacksjo01.shtml

###

Jan A. Larson is currently employed in private industry in Texas. He is a staunch supporter of honesty in government, fiscal conservatism and equal opportunity for all. He holds a bachelor of science degree from the University of Nebraska, a master of science degree from the University of Kansas and an MBA from Colorado State University.
jan@pieofknowledge.com