"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
These are the considerations made upon inducting a baseball Hall of Famer, and have deserved a little more scrutiny after recent talks about a re-induction of Pete Rose. After all, Pete Rose's stats are good. Very good, and this has become a question of Ethtics vs. Forgiveness. The romantic in my heart has an ear for hearing the underdog's side, but my conclusion stands that Pete Rose has no place in the Hall of Fame.
Shortly after the recent Hall of Fame induction, a discussion arose (no pun intended) about Pete Rose meeting with MLB Commissioner, Rob Manfred to discuss reinstatement for the Hall of Fame balloting. This perhaps may have been sparked by Rose's Sketchers commercial where he claims "I can't catch a break". You can watch the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYEGUzV-tOs
They talk about various considerations that need to be made when deciding if Rose should be reinstated or if he should never have a place in the Hall of Fame. The important points to take from it is Pete Rose's character by betting on baseball while managing the Reds and the comparisons to steroids.
Admittedly I didn't live through the Pete Rose era, so I have less context then perhaps another commenter but I did live through the steroid era which I think is an important contribution to the way people feel about this subject.
Pete Rose made a mistake when he decided to bet on the Reds. He decided to try and make money through betting while he was a manager. The argument has been made that he bet on his own team exclusively (although unproven), so it wouldn't make sense for him to be trying to throw games. Skip Bayless brings up a good point though in questioning "What about the games he didn't bet on?" as they mean he was in a way, guessing they wouldn't win. Having that sort of mentality questions his efforts as a manager. Did he try harder in the games he bet he would win?
This remains important because it gives enough reason for the him to be kept from the Hall of Fame, independent of outside variables. A lot of questions come up however when it's compared to the players who have controversy surrounding their PED (Performance enhancing drugs) abuse.
In 1991 PEDs were placed on the banned substance list for the MLB, and with the continuing of PED abusers, the testing for PEDs began in 2003. It has been alleged that there were many players who continued to use PEDs between 1991 and 2003, and some have been found to use even after 2003. So the conversation becomes "if all these players used steroids, but were put on the ballot, how come Rose can't be inducted?" and there's an answer to that question.
Pete Rose's mistake was made from being selfish. After receiving 24 years of baseball stardom, he wanted more. He decided to embarrass a sport that has been called classy and old school minded for years. However you script it, Pete Rose did things to get more after already being given so much. This is why the steroid era isn't a fair comparison.
What's not being talked about is that a lot of athletes admit to using PEDs. In fact they would say "everyone was doing it". So the unfortunate truth, is that many of them had already started their careers in the majors or minor leagues using PEDs before it was illegal.
Does that make it right? No. But when your job is on the line, sometimes right doesn't matter. Players are paid to be the best at their position, and when you're asked to stop doing what's making you good, but have no one testing you or the people competing with you for your job, you better believe you are going to assume the other people competing for your job that are on the cusp of succeeding are going to be taking those PEDs.
So when considering the ethics of betting on the team you're managing vs. cheating to keep your job, I don't think they're completely the same thing. One is trying to compete with players who may be putting you in the minor leagues where you make a fraction of your pay, not to mention the embarrassment of losing your job, while the other is trying to put more coin in your pocket after a career where he probably made more then most people reading this will make in a lifetime.
These two problems are not the same. Even with that, I'd say those who partook in steroids, particularly after 2003, should never reach the Hall of Fame either. But there's also the question of if they'd actually taken steroids. It's a lot easier to prove someone was betting on a sport, because there are usually many other people involved in a sports bet. Taking steroids can take as few as two people, and not to be too 'merican, but in America, people are innocent until proven guilty. So those who haven't been proven guilty can't be held out of the Hall of Fame until their infraction has been proven. Many of the players who are highly suspected of using PEDs have been held out of the Hall of Fame anyway, as even though they are on the ballot with eye popping numbers, they've been passed over time and time again. As they should be.
Pete Rose doesn't deserve to be in the Hall Of Fame. That's a privilege, not a right (just like driving a car). Pete Rose doesn't deserve a job as a manager. I can't imagine wanting to hire someone who may be trying to sabotage my business for a highly sought after job with lots of qualified people without that looming over their head.
When you read those six prerequisites for becoming inducted to the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose doesn't meet all of them. He meets some exceptionally, but that doesn't qualify him completely. There have been questions about players who have been 'good guys' that weren't extremely talented stats-wise entering the hall of fame, but at least they were above average talent players. Pete Rose's character and integrity were bottom of the bucket. I can see the view that others in the Hall of Fame, shouldn't be in there, but it shouldn't be a qualification to allow us to place people like Pete Rose in.
By Alan Clark
