Ask most longtime fans of baseball about Pete Rose and you'll get a crooked, uncomfortable smile in response. There are many reasons for this look.
In 1989, Sports Illustrated brought to light gambling activities that led to Rose's banishment from baseball. The all-time hits king has been a frequent discussion topic for hardcore fans ever since.
Next week, Pete Rose is due to issue a new autobiography with a 500,000 first printing scheduled. This is an extraordinary number of copies for someone with a previous autobiography still rotting on the shelves. He will appear on network tv for a primetime interview.
Speculation has it that Rose will finally admit to betting on baseball, with the Hall of Fame as a possible motivation.
With apologies to my good friend who penned this but cannot be present, here is one Pete Rose devotee's take on the subject.
"To fully understand the pete rose situation we must first fully understand the company into which he has been thrust. To do this, we must study the list of banned players:
Banned From Balling
With regards to the ever-cited argument for the
permanent banishment of rose (in particular the theory that with forgiveness of rose comes the acceptance of gambling and the disposal of the faith in the outcome of the game), check out ED DUFFY.
This guy actually threw a game for a c-note and was reinstated. Did it "ruin" the game? Did it ruin the public's trust? No.
What about George Steinbrenner? This piece of shit actually paid a mob goon to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield so he could drive down the market value for (arguably) the greatest slugger in the game (at the time, of course).
I'm not sure how he eluded jail time, though i'm
fairly certain it had something to do with his
involvement in that pillar of moral and ethics in
sport: the US Olympic Committee.
Fay Vincent (he of the Olympic COmmittee and of the 1/2/04 NY Times Op-Ed) was responsible for his suspension and reinstatement. Classy Dude.
The other day I was asked whether or not Rose's
confession after all these years and all these denials would change somehow my impression of the guy. I didn't answer because I just wasn't sure. I'm still not, though i think today i'm a lot more comfortable with it than i was yesterday. and i think tomorrow i'll be even more willing and so on until it's just a thing that happened.
Am I happy about it? No. Did I ever suspect this truth in '89 when SI broke the story? Again, No. Did I ever suspect we'd somehow, someday be
robbed of Pete's glory years leading the Cincinnati Reds to a pennant or two as the aging, irascible manager? No, and neither did he. But therein lies the rub.
For all the teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing that will accompany the latest twists in the Pete Rose saga (so sad it has become a saga instead of legacy, but more on that later) about the detriment of the game, of The Hall, of the sanctity of sport, we should all remember that
all this stuff is nothing more than bullshit.
When we talk about sport, and in particular baseball, we're talking about a rich and colorful history comprised of REAL human beings who are and were (for better and worse) defined more
by their faults than their virtues. Whatever pete did, he did to himself and his "good" name. No amount of posturing or revisionist history is ever going to change that, but i think at the very least we owe it to him, as a real human being, the chance to make good. If he can somehow find some measure of remorse, then so be it. If he can somehow make some kid in Iowa understand that despite the short-term windfall, the
risks of gambling stretch further than any game, than it's worth it. The risks of gambling are no more limited to the game than are the risks of steroid use. Both present several legal, financial and health risks that are not easily
dismissed.
The real fallacy of this Pete Rose situation, however, is in the argument that his reinstatement would work to result in destroying the game. Again, bullshit. Long we have heard that despite Pete's arrogant attitude to the contrary, he is NOT bigger than the game of
baseball. Very true.
He's been out of the game nearly 14 years now and the game has gotten along famously. TV ratings are up. Attendance is up. The exposure of the game is expanding to new and farer shores with
every world series. Don't believe me? Just ask Bud
Selig. (...of course in the same breath he will also lament the mounting losses and debt and so on...) And as such, no one single person could ever bring this game to its knees. If this were possible, it would speak more of the fragile constitution (see mounting losses and bud-speak) of the game than anything else. And if we allow ourselves (and Bud) to take as fact the diaphanous nature of the game, perhaps Pete's
reinstatement can somehow act to shine a bright light to all the murky corners of the once-great game so we might once and for all begin to treat the game's ills as we would any sick loved one.
maybe with a little inspection we will fully understand why one baseball team (the Reds) and one city (Cincinnati) are so desparate to bring Pete back. And in doing so maybe we'll also understand why Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and
Cincinnati are resorting to gimmicks instead of young lefties with a decent curve.
Because only with thorough examination of all the
problems can we begin to understand the true predicament of the game."
-- Penned by RP, 1/2/04