The Consensus Grows: Pete Rose Deserves His Shot at Cooperstown

---

---

When he was playing baseball, Pete Rose knew only one speed. He went all out, every day. He wanted to win.

I guess that tenacious drive to win — which was so admired by baseball fans — was what got him in trouble 25 years ago. On this day in 1989, Commissioner Bart Giamatti accepted what was called Rose's "voluntary ineligibility" from baseball for violating its prohibition on gambling.

What that meant, in simple language, was a lifetime ban from major–league baseball.

And a lifetime ban from baseball is exactly what it sounds like, too. It's for someone's lifetime — and then some. Nearly all the time, he has been prohibited from even being in a major–league ballpark. In one of the rare exceptions that comes to my mind was in the summer of 1999, he was part of the All–Century squad that was honored prior to the All–Star game at Fenway Park.

Rose was given a standing ovation from the fans that evening, by the way.

Why is gambling such a serious matter? Well, it has to do with the integrity of the game, the sport's assurance to its fans that the games are on the level. And the penalty isn't as severe if the player or coach bets on a game involving two other teams, but if a bet involves the team for whom the player plays or the coach coaches, it is much worse because such individuals are in a position to influence the outcome.

Rose was alleged to have made bets on games involving his own team, a charge he denied for 15 years — but finally admitted in 2004.

There's been considerable debate over the years over whether Shoeless Joe Jackson participated in the conspiracy to throw the 1919 World Series; if he did, his performance in the Series didn't show it (at the plate, he had 12 base hits and the only home run for either team; in the field, he committed no errors). Yet his ban remains in effect, nearly 100 years later — and more than 60 years after his death.

Shoeless Joe went to his grave insisting that he wasn't involved in the conspiracy — but you won't see his bust at Cooperstown.

Rose, now 73, knows there is virtually no chance that he will be reinstated, that even though he is still the all–time hits leader (and likely to remain so — his closest active competition is 40–year–old Derek Jeter, who is retiring at the end of this season and should still be at least 750 hits behind Rose when he does), he will never be enshrined in baseball's Hall of Fame.

And he appears to be at peace with that.

"I'm the one that screwed up," he told Keith Olbermann during last year's World Series. "I'm not mad at anybody. I'm not mad at [present Commissioner] Bud [Selig] or Bart [Giamatti]. I haven't given up on Bud giving me a second chance. I know he's retiring after [the current season], but I'll continue to be a great ambassador for the game of baseball and try to keep selling the game of baseball because I love the game."

Giamatti died a week to the day after Rose's ban went into effect.

ESPN recently reported that Rose still hasn't given up on being reinstated. At least, he says he hasn't.

My thoughts on Pete Rose have changed over the years. When the ban was put into effect, I was fully in favor of it. I remember saying to a friend, "When Shoeless Joe Jackson is allowed into the Hall of Fame, we can talk about Pete Rose."

I guess I still feel that way — to a certain extent. I don't think it would be right for Rose to be eligible to be enshrined at Cooperstown and Shoeless Joe not to be. I wanted Rose to admit what he had done, and I was angry that he did not when all the evidence pointed to his guilt. But he has since admitted betting on his team, and I'm willing to accept the last decade as his penalty for that.

I was primarily opposed to enshrining Rose, not continuing to ban Jackson, and my position today is that both should be enshrined — or, at least, they should be eligible for it. Whether they are or not should depend upon their body of work as baseball players; on that, I think we can all agree that they not only meet but exceed requirements. Their contributions to the game should be recognized, not denied because of a mistake that one made and unsupported allegations against the other.

Enough is enough.

I don't know how everyone in the sports media feels about Shoeless Joe, but I can report that there is a growing consensus that Rose should be eligible for a spot in Cooperstown.

Briana Altergott of the Atlanta Journal–Constitution takes no sides but summarizes what has been written recently in the sports press. The headline on Altergott's piece asked the question many in sports media are asking: "Does Pete Rose deserve a second chance?"

"If Selig wanted Rose's banishment to serve as a deterrent for those inside the game who were thinking about betting on it," writes John Erardi of USA Today, "Selig got it — a quarter of a century's worth."

Kevin Sherrington of the Dallas Morning News writes, "Rose has admitted mistakes and served his time. Twenty–five years. Time to make him eligible for the Hall of Fame. Leave it up to the process to determine if he's worthy.

"Frankly, I think he's deserving, just as I did 35 years ago and 25 years ago and last week. For better or worse, there's never been another player like him."

I'll go along with that. I saw him play in person once when I was a kid. He was electrifying to watch, whether you were pulling for him or against him. He wants to be part of baseball again. I believe he has learned from his years in the wilderness. "The last thing in the world I'd do now is bet on baseball," he told ESPN. "I would be the cleanest guy in the world when it comes to that because of the scrutiny I would go through. You may think I'm crazy, but I think baseball is in a better place if I'm in it."

I agree.

Pete Rose has paid his debt to baseball for gambling. Baseball has a chance to be generous and forgiving now.

McGwire Finally Acknowledges Steroid Use

---

---

It was dumb luck that I got to see the news coverage of the congressional testimony about steroids use in baseball that Mark McGwire gave on March 17, 2005.

I had been called for jury duty that day, and things got wrapped up early that afternoon, so I went home and switched on my TV. I don't think McGwire's testimony was live at the time I saw it. As I recall, I saw taped highlights.

And what I remember is his insistence that he wasn't there to talk about the past. It never seemed to occur to him that it was his past that gave any credibility to recommendations he had for the future.

It was a non–denial denial.

I was very disappointed in McGwire that day. When he broke into the majors with the Oakland A's, I liked him. I didn't care much for the other "Bash Brother," Jose Canseco — but, as it turned out, Canseco told the truth in his book when he not only admitted using steroids but fingered McGwire as someone who had injected performance–enhancing drugs with him.

Canseco told the truth. McGwire did not.

Technically, I suppose, you can't say McGwire lied. But implied in his protest that he did not want to talk about the past was the suggestion that he was guiltless. Actually, it wasn't even implied at one point, when he said, "[I]t remains a fact in this country that a man, any man, should be regarded as innocent unless proven guilty."

And during those hearings, McGwire sought to cast doubt on Canseco's credibility, saying, "[C]onsider the source of the statements."

I liked McGwire. His home run duel with Sammy Sosa in 1998 revived baseball with the public after the 1994–95 strike wiped out the 1994 World Series.

But it seems likely now that it was a hoax. McGwire was juiced. Sosa insists he never used steroids, but how can baseball fans believe him? Evidence is mounting that most of baseball's top performers in the last 20 years or so used steroids.

Even if no one proves his guilt, there will always be a stain on his name. Both he and McGwire exceeded the record for a single season. And McGwire apparently used steroids that season, but he has the audacity now to say he could have hit 70 home runs in 1998 with or without steroids. And Mike Bauman is right to call him on it in his article for MLB.com.

Essentially, Bauman said, McGwire is his own worst P.R. enemy: "What is apparently needed here is a basic, introductory course: Steroid Apologies 101," Bauman wrote. "You admit you took the steroids. You express your regrets for having done so. You appear to be genuinely penitent. You are a sincere seeker of redemption. You are a steroids sinner who has returned to the flock.

"What you do not do next, is what Mark McGwire did on Monday in an interview with Bob Costas on the MLB Network. He was fine through the admission and the apology. And then he said that if he had never used steroids he still would have hit all those home runs, because he was just that good. Talk about creating a nice moment and then crushing it."

Yep. Arrogance is a bad quality to project when you're trying to defend your use of performance–enhancing drugs. I must admit that I feel about the same way about McGwire as I do about Pete Rose. Even when admitting guilt, they insist on rationalizing their actions.

And that makes it difficult for those who always admired (and some envied) their talent to defend them.

This whole thing reminds me of the quiz show scandals of the 1950s. When Charles Van Doren — that scandal's version of McGwire — admitted in his congressional testimony that he had been "deeply involved in a deception," he was praised by most of the congressmen. But Rep. Steven Derounian, R–NY, refused to join the chorus praising him for admitting that he cheated.

"I am happy that you made the statement, but I cannot agree with most of my colleagues who commended you for telling the truth," Derounian said, "because I don't think an adult of your intelligence ought to be commended for telling the truth."

Well, McGwire, who likes to brag about his intelligence, cheated to get that home run record. Rose spent years denying what he finally admitted was true — that he gambled on baseball and he wagered on the team he managed.

As far as I'm concerned, they should both be kept out of the Hall of Fame.

I Still Support the Ban on Charlie Hustle

It was 20 years ago today that Major League Baseball Commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Pete Rose from baseball for gambling.

There were many great baseball players when I was growing up. I've heard some people argue that Rose was the best of that era, but that's a tough case to make.

Even so, he was a great player. And I assumed, as did many other people, that he eventually would claim his spot in baseball's Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y.

Rose initially denied betting on the Cincinnati Reds, the team for which he played for many seasons and later served as manager. But he finally admitted publicly, in his 2004 autobiography, that he gambled on the Reds but never gambled against the team.

That is a distinction that Rose's supporters have latched on as justification for lifting the lifetime ban on Rose and permitting him to be eligible for the Hall of Fame.

I believe it is exactly the opposite.

As manager of the Reds, Rose was in a position to make decisions that could jeopardize the integrity of the game. But, even when he finally admitted gambling on his own team, he did so in a book. He never stood up and spoke the words, never answered questions truthfully in public. He remained defiant, even when admitting his own wrongdoing.

I believe the evidence against Rose — including his own, albeit long delayed, confession — is considerably stronger than the evidence against "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, who was banned from baseball along with his teammates on the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox" for throwing the World Series.

When Giamatti banned Rose, I said I would favor lifting the ban only when Jackson's ban was lifted. In the 1919 World Series, Jackson set a record for hits in a World Series (12) and hit .375. He committed no errors in the field. He did acknowledge receiving $5,000 of a promised $20,000 bribe, but there is no evidence that he ever did anything in a game to help his team lose.

The case against Jackson is not clear cut. The case against Rose is.

Jayson Stark writes, for ESPN.com, that Rose made his reinstatement impossible because he "could never bring himself to do what seemed so obvious."

I agree that it is a sad story. Rose, now 68, "has lived two decades in purgatory," writes Stark. But he brought it on himself.