PETE ROSE: THE CASE FOR LIMITED REINSTATEMENT

By Tim A. Meshginpoosh

10/22/1998

Pete Rose was my childhood hero. He ran out ground balls. He slid head-first. He bowled over catchers. He was the heart and soul of the Reds teams of the 1970s, which spent nearly half the decade in the World Series. The memories are plenteous: the near-decapitation of Ray Fosse; the cliffhanger against Boston in 1975; the sweep of the Yankees in 1976; the 44 game hitting streak; the 3,000th hit; the 4,000th hit; the 4,192nd hit. For the better part of three decades, Charlie Hustle was baseball.

Now that his gambling has left his future in baseball uncertain, we annually debate the question: Does Peter Edward Rose belong in Cooperstown?

Most Rose supporters attack the Dowd report--upon which then-commissioner Bart Giamatti based his conclusions that Rose bet on baseball--proclaiming that the case against Rose is weak. Furthermore, Rose supporters contend that Charlie Hustle--the consummate competitor--never threw games, as did Chicago players Ed Cicotte and Lefty Williams in 1919. Next to the Black Soxers of old, Rose's offenses are benign.

Rose's critics--among them Fay Vincent and Comissioner Bud Selig--often counter by asking why Rose would agree to a lifetime ban if indeed he had not gambled on baseball. After all, Rose--who also spent time in prison for tax evasion--knew the consequences of his actions when he chose to gamble. Ever since 1919, baseball has maintained a zero-tolerance policy toward gamblers. Drug addicts? Yup. Wife beaters? Yup. Tax cheats? Yup. Gamblers? When hell gets hit by an ice storm!

Rose--ever the baseball man--understood the risks.

Contrary to Rose's critics, there is very strong evidence that Rose bet on baseball. The evidence also suggests that he bet on his own team. Bud Selig is obligated to ask the ethical questions to which Rose must be held accountable.

Charlie's detractors also argue tradition: if we reinstate Pete Rose, then what about "Shoeless Joe" Jackson, who merely knew about the 1919 scandal but chose silence?

In fairness to both Rose and Jackson, we should evaluate both situations fairly and equitably. For the sake of baseball--and for the sake of fairness to Rose and Shoeless Joe--Selig owes Pete and Shoeless Joe fair and thorough reviews.

First of all, "Shoeless Joe" Jackson was in a major dilemma: he knew that some of his teammates were taking payments to throw the series. He was offered money to do the same, but refused. What was he supposed to do? Tell the FBI? Who was he to trust? People who shell out big bucks often have big guns and concrete boots to back up those bucks. That Jackson remained silent is understandable. We did not elect him to public office. For crying out loud, he was a baseball player! I say let him in the Hall. It's not like "Shoeless Joe" represents an integrity risk to a game so gracious to Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, Dwight Gooden, or Wil Cordero.

Pete Rose, however, is a tougher case. I tend to agree with the critics on this point: that Rose would agree to a lifetime ban indicates that he did in fact gamble on baseball. He probably did bet on his own team. Given his frequent trips to casinos, Rose probably still has a gambling problem. Until Rose comes clean about these issues, his reinstatement should be put on hold. Selig can--and should--demand that Rose provide straight answers to easy questions and back them up with facts.

However, let's say--for the sake of our discussion--that Pete Rose does admit to gambling on baseball, and even his own Cincinnati Reds. Do we give him full reinstatement? Do we allow him to manage, coach, or possibly own a Major League team? Would it be within the best interests of the integrity of the sport to afford financial oversight of multimillion dollar payrolls to a man who has a propensity to gamble? To those questions, I would say no. If Rose is honest and forthright, then I would propose a limited reinstatement.

Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. He should be eligible to appear at special functions such as Old Timers' Games, All Star Games, and even post-season events. However, Pete Rose should not be permitted to manage, coach, or otherwise serve in the employ of Major League Baseball.

While he can--and should--be allowed to receive honors for his past accomplishments, his gambling merits a ban from future Major League payrolls.

This limited reinstatement allows baseball to honor one who brought a lot of admirable qualities to the game while preventing Rose from damaging the sport with his compulsions. Cooperstown will lose no value by adding Rose; those All Star celebrations will lose no luster with Charlie Hustle on the field. Permanently barring Rose from coaching, managing, or owning a team is ample punishment.

By providing this limited reinstatement, Major League Baseball can provide honor to two otherwise deserving players while finally achieving closure on 1919 and 1989.

That closure--folks--is within the best interests of Major League Baseball.

Let me know what you think. E-mail me at TMESHGIN@aol.com

Return to NetPundit Online