You are hereIS Blogs Home
Register   |  Login


Oct 16

Written by: Gary Jones
10/16/2009 11:54 AM

When the subject of Pete Rose making the Hall of Fame comes up, I know I am in the minority when I say he shouldn’t be elected.  Why not?  He broke the cardinal rule which was always painted on the walls of every single clubhouse in baseball:  If you bet on the game you will be banished from baseball for life. 

 

Now if we are going to excuse him just because he has more hits than anyone else, please put an asterisk by the rule, which would say that if you’re great, the rule will be waived.  But if you’re hitting .189 and leading the league in strikeouts and you’re kicked out for betting on the game, no one will jump on your bandwagon and plead for you to be reinstated.

 

This case very much reminds me of what happens in high schools across this country.  As a teacher for over 30 years, I have seen this at each school I have taught at.  Here it is in a nutshell-  it is easy to discipline a student who gets D’s and F’s and is always testing the system.  It is much harder and more controversial to enforce rules against a star athlete or the valedictorian when it means they will miss an important game or not receive their medals.

 

At the school I student taught at, there was a rule that said when two kids get in a fight, they will be suspended.  Our star quarterback, Tom Peitz, got in a fight on the day of the first play-off game and guess what?  He was not suspended.  If Joe Blow the “D” student had done it, he would have been gone.  This just in:  that is not right!.......but it happens all the time.

 

On day one of your first education class in college, they teach you that if you are not going to enforce the rule, do not list it on the sheet of rules.  Then you land your first job and you see that mistake happen time and time again. 

 

There was a team in Idaho that was at a state basketball tournament.  It happened years ago and I don’t remember which school it was.  Anyway, many players on the team got caught drinking and the coach did the right thing:  he forfeited because he didn’t have enough players to play the game.  Guess what happened? The school board fired the coach.  What message do you think that sent to the students at that high school?  The wrong one!!

 

Let’s get back to Pete Rose.  He knew the rule.  He knew the chance he was taking.  He got caught.  Does he remember the painted rule on the wall?  “Banned for life……….”

 

The Hall of Fame also has another set of rules for enshrinement:  the athlete must have great character and integrity.  Whether you agree if that should be important or not, it is part of the criteria.  Now, do you really think Pete Rose showed those qualities?  He lied about betting on baseball for years.  He wrote his first book and in it, he swore he didn’t bet on baseball.  When he finally came clean, did he do it on Oprah, ESPN, or the Tonight Show with Jay Leno?  Nope, he wrote another book saying he bet on baseball…...so he could make some more money.  In my world, that doesn’t qualify as great integrity. 

 

The Chicago Black Sox threw a World Series for money.  Do the great players on that team deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?  No, you say, but Rose does?  He says he never bet on the Reds to lose, but do you believe him?  You actually believe a guy who lied for years and only told the truth through a book he charged you for? 

 

I feel sorry for Pete Rose, just like I feel sorry for students who throw great moments of their career away for a drink of alcohol.  But a rule is a rule.  I remember when I talked to an administrator about an athlete that was allowed to play in a senior night basketball game after breaking a rule that many students had already been suspended for.  Here’s the answer I got- each and every infraction must be judged separately.  Each time before you enforce a rule, you must take it on an individual basis.  The individual basis they were talking about was- does this affect a sports team?  Oops, can’t enforce it.  Will this cost them their 4.0 GPA, oops again.  Can’t do it.

 

When people defend Rose, they say that people always deserve a second chance.  I agree, but they only deserve it after they pay for the mistake they committed.  No one loves dogs more than I do, but Michael Vick definitely deserves a second chance because he paid enough already for his crime.  So Rose’s punishment is too severe for what he did?  Then change the rule, but when Rose broke it, the punishment was a lifetime ban.

 

I’d like to ask Mr. Rose just two questions and I’d be happy. Hey, Pete, when you were betting on baseball, did you know that it meant a lifetime ban if you got caught?  Wanna bet?

 

 

Tags:

5 comments so far...

Re: A Rose With Thorns

Yeah, some people see rules as flexible but once you start bending rules it becomes unclear at what point they break. When I coached Little League baseball I got frustrated with the "flexibility" that seemed to be used to some people's advantage. I learned the rule book and once filed a protest because the head umpire didn't know the substitution rule (which is confusing when you read it). Some people probably thought I went overboard but my protest was upheld and the president explained the rule to everybody so hopefully it wasn't broken again. . . I like your point that if a rule isn't good (or allow for some flexibility) then change it. don't just make exceptions when you want to. . . . as far as Pete Rose goes, he was a jackass in about every way and as far as I'm concerned he belongs in the Hall of Shame.

By Harmonious on   10/17/2009 3:58 PM

Re: A Rose With Thorns

Jones,
You really come back with a bang don't you? I know there is a lot of controversy about Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame. You are the first guy that I have heard that said that the rule is written in every locker room in baseball. Are you sure of that? Great if it is! Anyway, as I read your blog I'm thinking, is he going to mention Vick? How do you forgive one and not the other? I doubt if you have ever been to an organized dog fight or cock fight. They are brutal to say the least and illeagal drugs are used in both. A rooster is not man's best friend like dog's are supposed to be, but dog fighting is far more gruesome. Even the training of dogs to fight is unbelievable.
Maybe you are religuos or not but in scripture the Lord said,"I will forgive whom I will forgive, but as for you it is written to forgive all men". It is also written that the measure of forgivness that we use is the same as will be used on us. I know in society there are different punishments for different crimes.
I'm not saying that Pete ought to be voted in, but I have heard other pro players say that he should be. I don't think he would have shown the ole Pete Rose hustle had he bet the Red's to lose. Maybe I'm w'wrong. I'm going to agree that he probably shouldn't be voted in, but I don't think Vick should either or all the other steroid user's. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

By stinger on   10/22/2009 12:39 PM

Re: A Rose With Thorns

Great response, Stinger. I only brought up Vick because I think he should be able to PLAY football again cuz he paid his dues. I was not suggesting he was eligible for the Hall of Fame. There's no way I would vote him in.....no integrity. Anyone who did that tp dogs is only eligible for the Hall of Shame. As for the rule painted on the walls, I saw a special on it, and it showed the Reds locker room and the rule. I don't know if it's still on all the locker walls, but it used to be.

By GJones on   10/22/2009 1:19 PM

Re: A Rose With Thorns

Gary, with only myself and one other commenting on the Pete Rose deal, I think we can assume that it is almost a dead issue. People have decided that it is of no interest to them anymore and have moved on to more recent issues. I'm not sure if it even comes up at voting time since his name is not on the ballot, is it? Anyway I think his efforts to get in will always be denied.

By stinger on   10/27/2009 9:25 AM

Re: A Rose With Thorns

Gary - I Enjoyed your article and your point of view. But I respectfully disagree with you about Pete Rose. While he was playing nobody played the game with more integrity and passion than Pete. I read an article about Pete and he was asked what do you want your last at bat to be like. His reply, "I want to ground out to the infield and bust my butt down the line and get thrown out on a bang bang play at first. I want to be remembered as the guy who always hustled." You rarely see a major league ball player hustle to first on a ground out. Do they lack integrity and should therefore never be allowed into the Hall of Fame. Pete's gambling problem came to light while he was a coach in the major leagues, not a player. Ban him from coaching or being elected into the Hall as a coach. But while he was a player he was the man and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame as a baseball player.

You talk about great character and integrity, there are many players, coaches, and even several owners in the Hall who lacked both character and integrity. Babe Ruth was a wife beater and drug user, Ty Cobb was a racist. Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were both banned by Bowie Kuhn for gambling ties after their playing days, but were reinstated by Peter Ueberroth. Ferguson Jenkins was banned from baseball for drug smuggling, but later reinstated and then elected into the baseball Hall of Fame. Must a player, have no blemishes on their record after they are out of the game? I think not. Pete should be held accountable for what he accomplished as a player and not held back from being elected into Hall by what he did in the years after he was a player. Bans have been lifted, this is not without precedent. Lift the ban on Pete and then vote him in, that is where he belongs.

By Higs on   11/3/2009 12:43 AM

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Security Code
Enter the code shown above in the box below
Add Comment    Cancel