We are fast approaching a day that should have never happened. Well, that is what I have been saying since I was 9 years old. August 24th 1989 is the date being referenced here. That is the day that Pete Rose was banned from baseball. That was the day a nine year old kid learned a lot about the heroes he had made for himself. Sadly, that 9 year old would see quite a bit more of heroes fall as he got older.
When Pete Rose was banned, there was a lot of unanswered questions. Pete denied he had bet on baseball. Matter of fact, Rose kept denying the allegations and protesting his banishment for years. That crushed the 9 year old inside of me that kept hoping it was true. I went to bat for ‘Charlie Hustle’ until the very end. In my circle, we knew he never bet on baseball, we knew that he was innocent, we knew that the wrong would be righted. Right up until January 8th, 2004. That’s the day his book My Prison Without Bars, hit bookshelves everywhere. That is the day he admitted that he had bet on baseball.
All the years of believing Rose, over. Well not exactly. Something had always told us that Pete did gamble on games. We fought so hard because we wasn't fighting to convince ourselves he was telling the truth, we were out there throwing haymakers in Pete’s name because we wanted others to believe. When other sport demi-gods of the day have their addictions and woes made public, we would attack. Why? Because we had a point to prove. We had to prove that Pete Rose was being punished for something that everybody has or had done. We would dig up any thing deemed criminal that other’s held in higher regard than Pete did, even at the risk of diminishing some of our other heroes’ credibility. It hurt, but we were doing for our love of Pete.
We would compare sin against sin, as if there was a way to justify that one sin was less than the other. The counter we would get was that sin was sin, and one was just as bad as the other. We couldn’t believe this to be true. Surely, there had to be varying degrees. I mean murder has to be worse than petty theft, right?
However, in our crusade we did have our ace in the hole. We could fall back to it every time things got heated. No matter what, nobody could ever prove that he had bet against his own team. All the receipts from transactions he made, to sheets written by the bookies, nobody could ever produce one that indeed stated that he bet against his team. There was no evidence to support it in the very report that exposed Pete’s gambling, The Dowd Report, collected by lawyer John M. Dowd, had shown that there was indeed evidence of Rose’s betting on baseball, and 52 accounts of him betting on the Reds, however no evidence he ever bet against them. It even showed that of all the games he had bet on in 1987, none were while Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched. They had two of the worst ERA’s in that particular season. Obviously, Rose didn’t want to lose his money. That right there should be enough to show that he bet on his team to WIN.
Now, rules are rules, and I am not saying that anybody should get by with breaking them. However, I am saying that the punishment should fit the crime. This is a case where it obviously does not. If you try to argue that it is, then you are more skewed than myself. What Rose did was basically this, he was the manager of a ball club and he puffed his chest out, and said my team can beat your team. Remember, the report supplied no evidence that he bet against his team, nor fixed anything to acquire a certain score or stat line. He did not adversely influence any contest. It only shows he bet on his team to win. It’s no different than going out and saying “I bet you 5 bucks we will beat you today.” The only difference is that he would put $2,000 on it.
If Mark McGwire can be the St. Louis hitting coach, Pete Rose can be part of baseball. End of story.
Now other longtime Rose supporters were aggravated that Rose’s admission came in the form of a book tour and an opportunity to make money, after they had fought for innocence for 15 years. It’s not the fact they he admitted it they had an issue with it. It was how he went about doing so. And the fact that he did it around the time of the Hall of Fame inductions in 2004. They felt he was trying to connect himself to the Hall, and generate even more attention to his newly found good deed of admission. I somewhat agree. That was also the year that ESPN released it’s TV-Movie Hustle, about Rose and his gambling addiction and banishment. It was a media blitz to get Rose’s name out there, and to get support for his cause. He was atoning for past transgressions, but was he sincere?
Rose was banned in 1989, and he was eligible to apply for reinstatement in one year’s time. That was our ray of hope. We just knew that he was going to be re-instated after baseball had taught him a lesson and humbled ol’ Charlie Hustle. However, due to a prison sentence he acquired in 1990 for tax evasion, Rose would postpone his application until 1992, When Fay Vincent, who had replaced Bart Giamatti as commissioner, never acted on it.
The next commissioner Bud Selig, has been one to dangle a carrot in front of his several times. First, in 2003 it was reported that he was seriously considering lifting the ban. After not acting on it then, once more in 2009, Selig was reported to be considering it again, however within 24 hours of this revelation, Selig publicly stated he would do no such action, and Rose’s suspension would be upheld.
Then you have that whole mess with Jim Grey during the All CENTURY TEAM ceremony in Atlanta during the 1999 World Series. Regardless of your stance on his line of questioning and the timing of such, let me just say this, by this point , it was a dead horse, Rose hadn’t and wasn’t going to admit to anything. It was a question that had been asked a thousand times. Jim Grey was trying to be a star. Rose would make any admission he felt he needed to when it would benefit him the most. Which was January of 2004. Why would he admit to it that night in Atlanta? He was being recognized as one of the greatest ball players of the last century. He was being put in a spotlight of being recognized as a great player, voted ahead of people who were in the Hall. It could sway some opinions in MLB, it could cause a shift in feelings. It was a warm fuzzy moment, and he was going to take advantage of it. Pete is like anybody else, he is an opportunist. He is a self-promoter. He was playing his hand.
Has anybody heard from Jim Grey lately? What is that guy up to?
Pete has received tons of accolades over the years. Honored in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and he was even voted into the WWE Hall of Fame.
So, I ask you is Pete emptier without the Hall?, or is the Hall emptier without Pete?
Pete Rose’s banishment has caused him to not only be able to be voted into the Hall, but has also prohibited him from having his number retired by his former teams as a fitting tribute to baseball’s all-time hit king.
To this day, The Cincinnati Reds have only issued his number 14 since Rose last wore it. It was to his son, Pete Rose Jr., who played 11 games with the Reds in 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment