ESPN.com is reporting that Pete Rose met with Bud Selig two weeks ago in Milwaukee to discuss Rose's possible reinstatement to baseball....as I have repeatedly stated on this board in past discussions of this very topic (sorry, couldn't find the prior thread), until and unless Rose ADMITS to betting on baseball (the cardinal rule of sports for ANY athlete short of actually "throwing" a game, which no one has ever accused Pete of doing) he should absolutely NOT be permitted back in the game under any circumstances.

I just began reading Fay Vincent's outstanding book, "The Last Commissioner" (as recommended by UMP25 on this board) and as the excerpts have mentioned, Vincent describes in detail not only Rose's unquestioned guilt in relation to the charges that were made public in 1989 but the actions of evil Bud leading up to his ascent to the commissioner's office following Vincent's ouster by a group of owners (most notably, Reinsdorf and Selig himself)....based upon Rose's comments as recently as earlier this year, it is clear that Pete has no intention of admitting his guilt and simply asking the American public to forgive him for his past transgressions, which they would overwhelmingly do -- but IMHO that will never happen largely due to Rose's ego, which is nearly as unbreakable in size as his all-time hit record!....as much as it pains me to say it (because as a lifelong baseball fanatic, I truly did enjoy watching Rose play and admired his all-out hustle EVERY minute of EVERY game) but OJ will admit to the double murders he committed before Rose comes clean on his heinous acts that have tarnished our national pasttime forever ....while his unsurpassed on-field achievements cannot be debated, Pete's incredibly selfish and egotistical actions that have called into question the basic integrity and credibility of the great game that he supposedly revered and that gave him immense fame and fortune should NOT be overlooked either.

The late, great commissioner Bart Giamatti would turn over in his grave if he read Selig was even considering such action....while I'm sure this issue will once again spur wide ranging debate among out great Outsports brethren, I strongly suggest that everyone purchase Fay Vincent's book "The Last Commissioner" (for an even better idea, buy it via the AMAZON.COM LINK ON OUTSPORTS) to get the TRUE, UNBIASED account of the actions and history surrounding BOTH Rose and Selig (which UMP25 can shed a great deal of additional light upon) before EITHER man is unduly praised.

Rose talks to Selig about possible reinstatement

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: gamecock ]

It may be true--probably is true, even--but I don't really think we can say that Fay Vincent is unbiased. But that's a minor quibble.

The ESPN article mentions that Joe Morgan and Mike Schmidt have been trying for years to get Rose to admit to betting on baseball, and that Schmidt accompanied Rose to the meeting with Selig. I hope that somehow, Rose finally realizes that he has to admit his guilt in order to be reinstated.

Something I'm not clear on: Rose applied for reinstatement 5 years ago and Selig has refused to act on it, saying he has seen no evidence that would make him alter the lifetime ban. Why doesn't Selig just deny the application? Is this some kind of strategic manuever to prevent a possible lawsuit?

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:

Why doesn't Selig just deny the application? Is this some kind of strategic manuever to prevent a possible lawsuit?

---

Who knows why Selig does what he does?

If Rose finally admits what he did and does the full mea culpa regarding gambling, I think it will still take a number of years--and much community service (for lack of a better term)--before Selig would reinstate Rose. Selig sees himself as the keeper of the flame of Fay Vincent & would truly need to see some contrition from Rose, not just for his gambling activities but for his treatment towards Vincent.

Does anyone think it would make a difference to Selig whether the gambling occurred while Rose was a player or only when he was a manager? I don't think it would matter--the rules say "no gambling" and that goes for all involved in the game--but some I've spoken to think it would be worse for Rose if he gambled on games during his tenure as a manager rather than during his playing days. Their argument is that a manager can impact the whole team by his actions (benching players, pulling a pitcher, etc) while a player can only affect his own game.

~Adam

I think Selig is playing a little public opinion game. Despite his sins and lack of 'fessing up, Rose is still obviously one of the most popular players in modern times as the World Series recognition shows. In a year where baseball had all sorts of problems with the fans, maybe Selig sees a way to come off in a better light? Who knows. I've always thought Rose would end up in the Hall of Fame at some point, and I wouldn't be surprised if he makes some sort of quasi-admittance of guilt and the ban is lifted.

If--when--Rose is installed in the Hall of Fame, do you think his plaque will include "Banned from baseball for gambling, 1989-whenever?" After all, there are a lot of moral reprobates and criminals in the Hall (think Ty Cobb.) And, do you think Rose's reinstatement will reopen the "Shoeless" Joe debate?

~Adam

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Adam ]

ESPN.com is reporting that John Dowd, the investigator who uncovered Rose's gambling habits, now says that if the investigation were to have continued it would have shown Rose not only bet on Reds games, but also against the Reds. Dowd also says that he has been told that part of Rose's reinstatement agreement would make him manager of the Reds again! Not sure what to make of this. Is this guy just trying to make headlines or does he really know something. If Rose did in fact bet on Reds games (especially against the Reds), he should never, ever be allowed back into baseball, period. He can offer up phony apologies 'til the cows come home.

Rose Investigator Speaks Out

Like any politician, Selig is floating a trial balloon. He knows Rose is popular in spite of it all, and so is waiting to see what sort of outcry there is about reinstating him.

Quote of the Day, from Mike Freeman in the NY Times: "If Rose were covered in gravy and dropped into a pit of lions, he could talk them into becoming vegetarians".

[quote]Originally posted by Adam:
do you think his plaque will include "Banned from baseball for gambling, 1989-whenever?" ... there are a lot of moral reprobates and criminals in the Hall (think Ty Cobb.)
[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Adam ]

---

But none of them -- or at least evidence no longer exists -- broke the First Commandment of BASEBALL, however. Which is why neither Rose nor Joe Jackson (a better hitter) should *ever* be admitted to the HOF.

The fans' strange love of Pete Rose (Rob Neyer, espn.com)

Bill W., you have my admiration and gratitude for pointing this out.

In the Major League Agreement that covers all players, managers/coaches, club personnel, umpires, and owners, there is one and only one "capital crime." Violations of any part of the MLA can result in disciplinary actions. However, violations of the sole "capital crime"--the betting clause--result in lifetime banishment.

Thank Commissioner Landis for putting this in and emphasizing its importance.

Rose violated this clause. He knew the repercussions. Furthermore, he admitted he didn't care, for he said he was "too big" to take down.

Now let him pay the price--for life.

[quote]Originally posted by Adam:
If--when--Rose is installed in the Hall of Fame, do you think his plaque will include "Banned from baseball for gambling, 1989-whenever?" After all, there are a lot of moral reprobates and criminals in the Hall (think Ty Cobb.) And, do you think Rose's reinstatement will reopen the "Shoeless" Joe debate?

~Adam

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Adam ]

---

This reminds me of something I heard about not too long ago. I remember hearing something about both Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker, when they were player-managers for the Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians(?) respectively, being investigated and possibly reprimanded for betting on baseball in the 1920's. If how I remember this is correct, then the contention that Rose should be kept out of the Hall permanently would hold even less water. Does anyone remember this at all?

I recognize that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, but I do see a downside. In order to get into the Hall, he has to be reinstated. If reinstated, he is an official part of MLB again and can be associated with teams, attend ball games, etc. I'm worried that the gargantuan ego on this guy will entice him to try and upstage the game on the field today. Even when he's miles away from ballparks, his "look at me!" attitude can distract from the game itself. If he's actually involved again, I'm afraid that beyond making an ass of himself (something he excells in)Rose is going to make it harder to be a baseball fan.

Let them change the rules to allow him to be eligible for the Hall of Fame and still be banned from everything else. That will get rid of the controversy forever, I think.

[quote]Originally posted by cubsfan1982:



This reminds me of something I heard about not too long ago. I remember hearing something about both Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker, when they were player-managers for the Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians(?) respectively, being investigated and possibly reprimanded for betting on baseball in the 1920's. If how I remember this is correct, then the contention that Rose should be kept out of the Hall permanently would hold even less water. Does anyone remember this at all?

---

My error for probably not being clearer.

Rule 21d of the Major League Agreement is the part that relates to Rose. Betting on games other than those in which one is involved carries a 1-year ban. Betting on games in which one is involved in any manner carry permanent--lifetime--banishment.

The evidence we umpires have seen from our superiors--evidence not publicly released--clearly indicated Rose bet on his own games.

Letterman's Top 10 Ways Pete Rose Can Improve His Image
10. Remind people how much he used to hustle.
9. Change name to "Spongepete Rosepants."
8. Travel with a monkey -- everyone loves monkeys.
7. Make an appearance on "The Tonight Show."
6. Say betting-on-baseball was research for a movie role.
5. Write and star in the delightful comedy "My Big Fat Pete Rose Wedding."
4. Find and kill Osama Bin Laden.
3. Always carry Tums -- periodically offer them to strangers.
2. Teach underprivileged kids how to play the ponies.
1. Hold a press conference declaring he's not gay (CBS, 12/11).

[quote]Originally posted by jqueer:
In order to get into the Hall, he has to be reinstated.

---

Not necessarily. The Hall membership is technically the province of the people who operate it (a single family, I think -- forget their name) and the voters they've granted election privileges, in Rose's case the Baseball Writers of America.

MLB did not establish Cobb's and Speaker's guilt in their day, for whatever reason. Rose's guilt has been or could be established, I'm convinced.

NO to Rose, NO to Shoeless Joe Jackson in the Hall.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:


NO to Rose, NO to Shoeless Joe Jackson in the Hall.

---

I agree.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:


NO to Rose, NO to Shoeless Joe Jackson in the Hall.

---

Jackson, in my opinion, has done more than enough time. Let him in. Rose on the other hand, I'm ambivalent about. I'm still inclined to let him back in, but only if he is never ever allowed to take a job with a major league team where he would be directly influencing the outcome of the game. That includes manager, GM, coaching staff, anything directly relating to the play on the field. One must admit, even if he dislikes Rose intensely, that he can be one of the best ambassadors the game can have. Polls consistently show that among non-sports fans, his reinstatement is viewed in a positive light. Why give people who say baseball is a dying sport stuck in the past more ammunition? I would say, let him back in, but do not ever give him the opportunity to manage or coach again.