By Brad Locke
January 9, 2004

(AgapePress) - I have a definite opinion on the Pete Rose issue -- but so does everyone, especially now that he's admitted in his just-released autobiography that he gambled on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds. However, revealing my opinion would be rather pointless in scrutinizing the situation.

Certainly, Rose did some bad things, mainly gambling on baseball and then lying about it for 14 years. But this morality tale reaches far beyond Rose's indiscretions. It's about lying, yes, but it's also about punishment and forgiveness, justice and mercy, and if there is any possibility of finding a middle ground that pleases the majority.

When the late Bart Giamatti banned Rose from baseball for life, he did so because of a load of evidence that the major leagues' all-time hits leader had placed numerous bets on games, many of which involved the Reds. Rose said he never bet against his team, but baseball has a hard and fast rule against its members betting on the sport, and Rose's punishment was meted out according to the rulebook.

Therein lies the dilemma for current commissioner Bud Selig -- draw most fans' ire by sticking to Giamatti's ruling, or earn their eternal adoration (something he has from few fans at the moment) by unspooling historical precedent.

It would be wrong of Selig to reinstate Rose solely to appease Rose's supporters. His concern should be for the sport's ultimate betterment -- to treat this situation as a mere public relations ploy would be disrespectful of Giamatti, Rose, the fans, and baseball as a whole.

Personally, I don't think Selig is that self-serving. The fans are another story, though.

Sentimentality is best nourished by the passage of time. The years have softened people's hearts towards Rose, and many believe it's time to forgive and forget. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing on a personal level. But when it comes to organized justice, reprieves are hard to come by, and for good reason. Justice will eventually evaporate if it continually undercuts itself.

A reversal of Giamatti's decision could be considered just such a miscarriage of justice. Giamatti had the authority to ban Rose from baseball, and that authority must be respected. Selig could very well be labeled a traitor to his own office if he capitulates to Rose's wishes.

But the fans who support Rose would certainly be willing to overlook that. They believe Rose has been punished enough and that one of the all-time greats deserves to at least be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, if not let back into the sport completely. Some are willing to settle for enshrinement plus nothing, while others want the whole bag, but either avenue could set a dangerous precedent.

The pro-Rose crowd's best argument for any kind of reinstatement is that personal character should not affect a player's standing with baseball. They point to the fact that racists (such as Ty Cobb), drunkards (Babe Ruth) and even a self-acknowledged cheater (spitballer Gaylord Perry) are in the Hall. So why not a gambler? After all, his betting on baseball hurt no one, except maybe Rose himself.

Ah, but this is where the anti-Rose contingent jumps on that argument. Rose sinned not only against himself, they say, but against the integrity of the game. Baseball's purest purists are big on protecting the game's purity at any cost. And even if he didn't bet against his own team, the fact that Rose gambled on baseball while a participant is simply abhorrent to them, moreso than off-field carousing or ignorant personal beliefs.

Which brings me back to this problem's root -- Rose. First he bet on baseball. Then he lied about it. Now comes his admission, which he hopes will help his reinstatement efforts. But Rose's confession appears to have been tendered for the sole purpose of his returning to baseball's fold, and not from a sudden attack of conscience.

There's also the intrinsic paradox of his confession -- admitting guilt, while supposedly aiding his cause, actually places Rose in even worse light. If he was banned because of one person's well-founded suspicions, why should he be reinstated upon confirming them? On the other hand, in courts of law, defendants are often given lighter sentences when pleading guilty and eschewing a trial, where a denial of wrongdoing invites harsher punishment if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming.

But it must be asked: If Rose had owned up to the accusations 14 years ago, would Giamatti have been more lenient? Rose said he denied wrongdoing because he felt an admission would have drawn a lifetime ban. So if a full confession would have damned him then, why wouldn't it now?

That's what Selig must figure out.

Brad Locke (fredbob_sports@yahoo.com) is a sports journalist in Tupelo, Mississippi.

© 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved.

 

E-mail this page to a friend Printer-Friendly Version