 |
|
Home
Wrestling
WWE
TNA
Tape Reviews
Other
Sports
Basketball
Football
Baseball
Hockey
International
Entertainment
Movies / TV
Music
Gaming
Technology
Books / Comics
" The Gravel Pit "
|
|
|
|
Wrestling
From JHawk's Beak: TSM Readers Speak on Pete Rose
Posted by Jared "JHawk" Hawkins (and his readers) on Jan 18, 2004, 21:35
|
|
From JHawk's Beak: Readers Respond About Pete Rose
compiled by Jared "JHawk" Hawkins
The views expressed in this article are...well, yours. I gave my spiel about Pete Rose in my January 8 SmackDown recap and asked my readers to give me their thoughts, and a number of them responded in kind. I might chime in on occasion to answer any questions that come up, but this one is basically your show. So enjoy.
Italiano: "While they should let him in, this is Major League Baseball, where all that can be screwed up will be screwed up, hence things like Shoeless Joe and the All Star Draw. He may get in, but it won't be under Selig. "
Andrew Skocik: "I was watching that tonight instead of Smackdown, actually. He's not gambling anymore, has apologized for it, and having him back in baseball would be great for everyone.
So, is the rule that you ever gamble you're banned for life, end of discussion? If so, that's pretty lame. "
Note from JHawk: The rule is actually "If you ever bet on baseball, you're banned for life, end of discussion." A good rule in theory, actually.
"Great opening quote, by the way. Ain't it the truth, though? You forgot to add "though shalt not exercise your freedom of speech to make potentially offensive comments." Rocker's comments included some racist/sexist comments, but some of it was also very true. "
Note from JHawk: John Rocker wasn't in any danger of a lifetime ban for those comments. Not like he's had a Hall of Fame career to worry about though.
"Well, reinstatement doesn't necessarily mean he'll be in the Hall of Fame, so Selig could still stick to his word but stay adamant about the HoF matter. Ideally, they'd either let him in or be stricter with with the integrity rule (as you mentioned, letting boozers, drug users, etc in the Hall). At least then they could be consistent. Then if they insist on sticking to their guns he can get a posthumous induction."
Dr. Tom: "Basically, I think your boy is a waste of sperm and egg, and I've thought that for 15 years. And yes, betting on his team to win matters. The simple reason is that he's not managing to win a game at that point, but to win money. The best interests of the team -- which a manager should always be looking out for -- take a backseat to the $15,000 the skipper has riding on the game. What if, in his quest to win and make more money to gamble with, he leaves a young starter in too long a few times? What if that player develops an arm injury because Rose overused him? Now a young player's career is in jeopardy, all because his manager was betting on the game. What if he brings his closer in for a 5th straight game instead of giving him a much-needed day off? What if THAT pitcher develops arm problems? What if he just gets shelled because he's tired and loses his confidence? Things like that can torpedo a promising season quickly, and all because the manager was betting on the games. Here's another scenario: Rose is betting on the Reds to win, but they lose a few games in a row, and now he owes money. The bookies say all debts will be forgiven, if the Reds lose an important intra-divisional series that weekend. Now the outcomes of the games are at risk, all because Rose had to gamble on the Reds.
There's a reason gambling on the sport (especially on your own team) is the cardinal sin of the game. It's because the ONE thing no sport can afford to lose is its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Once managers are wagering on the games, that legitimacy is damaged. If you want to see a sport where gambling has completely killed the legitimacy, look no further than boxing. A heavy favorite loses, and *immediately* there are accusations that he got paid off to take a dive. Why? Because it's happened before, and everyone in the industry wagers on fights they're involved in. Boxing has no legitimacy as a sport anymore, and baseball does NOT want to go down that road. No sport should.
Here's another reason I hate your boy: he lied to the public for 15 years just to get sympathy on his side and get reinstated. Remember Jim Gray? He asked Rose some pointed questions about gambling, which we now know (and some of us knew all along) were legit. Rose acted like a wounded little bird, the gullible public rallied behind him, and Gray was CRUCIFIED for it. Why? Because Pete Rose is a rotten piece of shit. What's Gray doing now? Does he even still have a career like he did back then? Now, after winning so much public sympathy because of his lies, Rose has made the "revelation" that he bet on baseball. The best part about this is that the public is turning against him. People don't like being lied to. People don't like feeling their emotions were played with and used. This is going to cost Rose big-time in the Court of Public Opinion, and there are few people happier to see it than I. I also read a Jayson Stark column today that says Rose's recent behavior has damaged his chances for reinstatement. Good."
Note from JHawk: Jim Gray is doing ringside interviews for Showtime Championship Boxing as well as courtside interviews for ESPN's NBA coverage, so I say he's doing quite well. But Gray was crucified not because he asked Rose the question, but he asked it FIVE TIMES when Rose flat out said he wasn't going to answer it. He should have asked the question, but he should have dropped it when Rose said he wasn't answering.
"Babe Ruth was a drunk and a womanizer? Who cares. Ty Cobb was just a freaking prick of the first division? Big deal. You don't need to be a saint to get into the Hall, and if you did, it would be a very small museum. What you can't do, though, is commit the biggest sin in the game. That's what Rose did. Now he's paying for it, and he needs to continue paying for it"
Adam: "I think Peter Gammons's article on the situation may represent my feelings the best. Instead of doing some sort of conference with the media or something else, he admitted to betting in a manner that would bring him profit. No one really knew what Rose would say in the book, but I'm sure some from his camp started those rumors about his book admitting it, to get people to buy it. And he's milked the media along the whole time, getting popular off of something which he could've solved the problem to years ago. Sorry, but I think Rose has overshadowed the game too long with this. THAT'S where he shows a lack of integrity and character."
Scorpio: "I agree with you that Pete Rose should be allowed into the hall of fame, but that he should continue to be banned from participation in the sport, but I wanted to share my thoughts on some of the things you wrote:
Seems like you're missing the point of the whole gambling-being-the-greatest-sin thing. Even if Rose never bet against his team, his gambling on baseball at all still brings the credibility of the game into question. Say he messes with the lineup for 10 straight games; he's going to get much better odds on the Reds in the 11th game isn't he?
If a player kills someone, or commits some other foul crime, it may taint the public perception of the game, but it certainly doesn't damage the credibility of the sport. If fans get to thinking that baseball is fixed, then it's going to end up as sports entertainment. And really, baseball's not interesting enough to survive without the honest competition.
I'm not saying that he did or didn't screw around to win money, but if he lied for 14 years about betting on the game at all, what are the odds that he's telling the truth about never betting against his team now?"
Note from JHawk: Considering there was no evidence of that even during the initial investigation, I'd assume we can believe him there, but Vegas would probably give you even money on it.
"My point: let the guy in the Hall, and right under his plaque for being the career hits leader, etc, etc, put another plaque letting people know that he was banned for the game for gambling, and never allowed back in. I think that that would make everyone happy, no?"
Note from JHawk: That's actually a hell of an idea. Not one I'd favor personally since there are no plaques saying "such and such was suspended five times for drug use" or anything, but one I'd certainly be willing to accept.
Scott Nicholl: "I've not written to you guys at the Smart Marks before, though I am a regular reader, and I enjoy almost everything that appears on the site. Your recent remarks about the Pete Rose situation struck a chord with me however. You made some excellent points, and I certainly won't try to change your opinion, but I think there may be a few additional points that bear consideration....
Some of my first memories of watching baseball were of the Phillies 1980 World Series triumph. Two in particular stand out. The first was Tug McGraw leaping into the sky after nailing down the Series' final out to close out the Royals in 6 (rest in peace, Tugger) and the second was the strangely compact batting stance of one Pete Rose. As a 7-yr old, I remember thinking that my coach at the time would have crucified me for batting like that, but it sure seemed to work for Pete. He was my first "favorite player". Of course, time, circumstances and Rose's myriad of issues combined to change all of that, but the events of this past week have caused me to loose what little respect I had left for Rose. He has become nothing more than a lying, self-serving, remorseless creep who will do whatever he has to do to gain reinstatement. Anything that is, except telling the whole truth about his behavior. After watching his interview (or shameless book promotion) on TV last night, I can't see how anyone would think differently. I'm not a human lie detector, but I think I know when I'm being B.S.ed. Yes, character and integrity may have been ignored in the past when considering a player for the Hall, but does that mean, they should be ignored? Perhaps it's time to set a new standard. Or perhaps it's simply time to abide by the standards originally established.
I struggle to grasp the rationale, favored by some, that his gambling, while reprehensible, should be forgiven since he never bet against his own team. Since there's no evidence that he did so, does this mean we know for a fact that Rose never did anythingduring his tenure as Red's manager that might have been based on whether or not he had a bet on a game? The possibilities are endless. What if he only bet on some games? What if he didn't use a reliever in a game he didn't bet on, preferring instead to save him for the next day's game, that he would have a wager on? Does this scenario not display incredible arrogance and disregard for the game? It could be argued that if he had any sort of bet on his own team, that his state of mind was probably far from being concerned with the game's integrity.
The spirit of the anti-gambling rule does not distinguish between betting for or against your own team, nor should it. Any sort of wager has the potential to tamper with the integrity of the game and hence tear at the fabric of baseball. And what of Rose consorting with a lengthy cast of unsavory characters? Folks that might have persuaded Rose act in a certain way that would favor them, in exchange for forgiving some of his considerable gambling debts? This is just conjecture of course, but given what we do know, it's not unreasonable conjecture.
Yes the majority of America's sports fans believe that Rose should be reinstated based on his on-field accomplishments, which are certainly legendary. However, the culture of hero-worship that permeates Western societies is not a healthy thing and should not be encouraged. It's the same sentiment that has people cheering on O.J. Simpson as he tries to outrun responsibility, or those who are 100% certain that Kobe Bryant is being framed. After all, these guys are heroes, they can do no wrong, right? People are desperate to believe that stars, athletes, musicians have characters that are equal to their artistic or athletic abilities. The truth is of course, they are humans, with all-too-human flaws, and like the rest of us, sometimes they break rules to which there are consequences. They are not entitled to a free pass just because they happen to be one of the best to ever swing a bat.
*One other problem: when Rose said last night that he wanted to manage the Reds again, it sent shivers down my spine. Not just at the prospect of him being at the helm of a major league team again, but how he could be so utterly delusional. After all that has happened, does he really believe that MLB will allow that to happen??? Does anybody? The problem is that I'm not sure Bud Selig could reinstate him to baseball, and then not allow him to earn a living in the game. There would have to be legal ramifications for this, which I think baseball would lose.
A compromise I could live with: Bow to public pressure and put him in the Hall, illustrating his extraordinary accomplishments and his service to the game. But, have his plaque in the Hall also reflect the truth about his gambling issues, his aversion to the truth, his subsequent banishment from the game and above all, his considerable disservice to baseball.....and let the Cooperstown visitors make their own judgements. "
John Sharkey: "For starters, I'll get my stand out in the open: I do think Pete Rose should be allowed to be eligible for the hall of fame. But I do NOT think that he should be allowed to work in baseball, be it as a manager or a bat boy or whatever the hell else he wants to do.
I've gone back and forth on this "issue" quite a bit recently, and what it comes down to is this: he DID break the rule, and somehow you have to stand by that rule. If you don't, all you are showing is that the rules of baseball don't really mean anything, and you can't have that.
The validity of the rule is debateable, but this isn't the place for that.
One of the things that I believe Rose has in his favor is that he did his gambling while a manager. And we all know he isn't a Hall of Fame-calibur guy based on his managing. He sucked. During his playing career, (we think) he wasn't betting on baseball. And looking at his career, he is one of the greatest hitters to have ever stepped on the diamond. So he does need to be in the hall of fame at some point, because he does hold the hits record, and the hall will always have a gaping hole without that.
But one of thing things Rose has going against him is public perception. Especially over HOW he admitted to betting, and how he continued to spew lies (saying he didn't place bets from the clubhouse when he did) and tried to make excuses (blaming it on ADD? please). He refuses to accept that maybe it is HIS fault, and not baseball's, because they didn't have a gambling program (another claim of his).
And wheather it was his intention or not, doing this in a book, where he stands to profit very substancially, makes him seem like a money-hungry asshole, who is trying to squeeze every last cent out of his name. If he had actually come forward on his own, admitted he was wrong, he made a mistake, it was his fault, that's fine. But it seems like he just doesn't get it, after all of these years.
But all of that considered , old Bud (who I despise, but I'm not going to get into that here either) has to try to stick to his word somewhat. He said the big step was admitting, and he did do that. So like it or not, he is going to have to make him hall-eligible. But that doesn't mean you have to let the guy back into baseball. You still have to show that you do get punished for betting on the game. Like I said before, you might not think that is a big deal, but that doesn't matter, because you have to stick to some kind of rule.
I think a pretty fair way to do things is to wait until 2005, when his normal hall eligibility runs out. Then go ahead and make him eligible, and leave it up the the Veteran's Committee to decide if he gets in (which he will). I really don't think that giving him a year of writers' votes would do him any good, because I strongly doubt he would be voted in at this point, by them.
The Hall is one thing. But letting the guy manage, or whatever, is entirely another. I go back to protecting the rule here. If you are going to let the guy back in, then toss out the rule, because it obviously doesn't apply to great players, and why have it then? But if the rule stays, you can't let him work in baseball. Somehow, there has a to be a permanant punishment here, or you might as well make betting a 15 year suspension or something then. And we know baseball won't be doing that.
One thing I want to know is this: what is Mike Schmidt thinking right now? Either he didn't know Pete was a liar, and he had been defending Rose this whole time, only to be made a fool of, or he did know, and was lying right along with Pete this whole time. That's something I would like to know.
And what was Bud thinking sitting on this for over a year? Just another reason I hate the guy..."
So it looks like my readers (at least those who responded) are pretty much split on the issue. Great points made on both sides, and that's the kind of spirited debate I'd like to see in my mailbox about SmackDown every week.
You can send feedback about this article (or any other article of mine) here.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
