Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Pete Rose petitions commissioner

GLENDALE, Ariz. -- Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred says he has received a formal request from Pete Rose asking that his lifetime ban be lifted and that he will consider the all-time hits leader's request "on its merits."

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/12494 ... t-life-ban

I don't think he should go in. He lied about betting. He would go to Cooperstown every year and steal the thunder of the other guys being inducted. Then he told the truth when he had a book to sell. Wait until he passes to induct him just so the topic goes away forever.

If Rose had come clean the day the story broke, had a press conference where he tearfully admitted to having a gambling addiction, and chosen to walk away from the game for life in order to undergo rehab and that he was sorry for what he did, and he would have walked the line from that point forward and worked to help others with gambling addictions, I think there is a good chance it would have blown over and he would have eventually went into Cooperstown. But he denied it for 15 years, lying openly to hundreds of reporters and fans who asked him if he ever bet on his team, until it was time to make a big pile of money for writing a book admitting to all the charges.

There are a lot of factors to consider:
First - degree of guilt. No question. He is guilty.
Next - Seriousness of offense. Minor. You cannot compare the crimes of Willie Sutton and Charles Manson.
(Pamela Smart's "lover" has just been granted eligibility for parole.)
We are sooo fortunate to have a skilled indiviual here. I am hoping Jeremy offers his thoughts (if he can.)
Now, beyond that, there are other matters that will affect this.
Foremost of these is that the lifting of a lifetime ban does not automatically include induction to the Hall of Fame.
That will be a separate procedure.
What if the commish lifts the ban with the proviso that he accepts he will never be a HoF candidate?
And, if there is no restrictive provision, will he be nominated and voted in?
Then we have the legacy of Manfred.
If he upholds the ban, he is just another in a long line of mostly useless sports commissioners.
However, if he lfits the ban, his legacy will live forever as a landmark decision in the annals of Baseball history.
Where is "The Shadow?"
Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man?

oldecapecod 11 wrote:Next - Seriousness of offense. Minor.

MINOR!? There may not be a more serious offense in the world of sports than consorting with gamblers -- especially someone managing a team, someone who makes all kinds of decisions that can affect the outcome of a game. Rose was way in debt with these people (interestingly that athletes tend to be very poor at gambling on sports), and how tempting would it have been if one of them had said he'd be off the hook if he'd just hold out Mario Soto in the series against the Dodgers, or something of that nature?

In the grand scheme of things, Rose's crime is minor, true. But that's not the issue. He's banned from BASEBALL, and for baseball this was a heinous offense. Just about any job has several that will get you fired immediately, and gambling on the game occupies the top spot in baseball. As it should.

I remember Rose's ban as lifetime but the article refers to it as permanent.

The former would imply that once he passes Rose would be eligible for baseball's highest honor.
Is that the case?

Is it somewhat interesting that we're willing to admit an individual is worthy of the hall of fame but aren't willing to admit him while living based on...

Is Art Modell in the same purgatory?

Bob Gill wrote:

oldecapecod 11 wrote:Next - Seriousness of offense. Minor.

MINOR!? There may not be a more serious offense in the world of sports than consorting with gamblers -- especially someone managing a team, someone who makes all kinds of decisions that can affect the outcome of a game. Rose was way in debt with these people (interestingly that athletes tend to be very poor at gambling on sports), and how tempting would it have been if one of them had said he'd be off the hook if he'd just hold out Mario Soto in the series against the Dodgers, or something of that nature?

In the grand scheme of things, Rose's crime is minor, true. But that's not the issue. He's banned from BASEBALL, and for baseball this was a heinous offense. Just about any job has several that will get you fired immediately, and gambling on the game occupies the top spot in baseball. As it should.

If a sport isn't on the up-and-up, if there is the possibility of games being rigged and winners and losers are decided before the fact, then Baseball isn't a sport, it's Rassling.

Yes; minor - unless and until there is evidence of any attempt to fix a game.
Please don't think for a minute that when the Yankees and visiting ball clubs - of every sport - went to the Copacabana
that they went ONLY on "Priests' and Rabbis' Night."
One would have to be terribly naive to think there was not a tad of consorting with a questionable element.

JuggernautJ wrote:I remember Rose's ban as lifetime but the article refers to it as permanent.

The former would imply that once he passes Rose would be eligible for baseball's highest honor.
Is that the case?

Is it somewhat interesting that we're willing to admit an individual is worthy of the hall of fame but aren't willing to admit him while living based on...

Is Art Modell in the same purgatory?

He is officially under a permanent ban, but then so was George Steinbrenner when he was reinstated less than three years later. The commissioner can consider Rose's case at any time, but Fay Vincent and Bud Selig never did. Of course, Rose took 15 years before he admitted the obvious, and then it was only done to hype a book. He should have to wait until at least 2019, which will be 15 years from the time he finally quit lying.

As far as Modell, his record as an owner was nothing special and there have been some who said his work with the TV group was overrated.

When Rose was a manager, suppose he had a bet down on Wednesday's game. It could (would) make him hold out a relief pitcher on Tuesday so the pitcher would be fresh for the Wednesday game.

What does this mean? Even though Rose "didn't bet against his team" he might not be putting his best players on the field in certain games.