Journal 1

Michael Arnott

Exploratory Journal #1

            In Kostya Kennedy’s book, Pete Rose: An American Dilemma, he discusses Pete Rose’s worthiness of the Hall of Fame.  He compares Rose’s crime of gambling to modern crimes against baseball such as PEDs, or performance enhancing drugs.  It is a tricky debate since it cannot be proven that gambling affected any player or managerial decisions from Pete Rose, but there is always the lingering question of “What if it did?”  Kennedy explains it well when he says that Rose was punished for what “he might have done” (50) while steroid users are punished “for the damage they actually did” (50).  He also outlines the MLB’s loosening of restrictions on gambling pointing out that many ballparks and teams are affiliated with businesses that support gambling.  He argues that while Rose may not make it into the Hall of Fame, his acceptance by the MLB is the next best thing.

            Going into this topic, I did not know a whole lot about Pete’s career as both a player and a manager, or about him as a person.  All I knew was that he broke the most sacred rule--there’s no betting in baseball—and it earned him a lifetime ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame.  One thing that this article introduced me to is that it was the decision of the commissioner at the time, Fay Vincent, and that it could be overturned by future commissioners like Bud Selig, the current commissioner.  Times change and new issues arise so a decision that was made 20 years earlier should be able to be taken into account through the viewpoint of a new era.  The author threw out the idea that Bud Selig may pardon Rose when he leaves office after this year, which would only be fitting seeing as Selig has ruled over the MLB during its darkest years of the steroid era.  Selig took over after Rose’s banishment but has still remained strong in the stance to keep it that way, but at the same time, he has seen how much steroids have tarnished and damaged the game, and it is an interesting thought that he could pardon a man who fairly earned his accolades as compared to those who cheated their performance.  The author brings up that Rose has been making his way back into the baseball world through Sparky Anderson, his manager’s, forgiveness, and returning to the Reds’ ballpark to the roar of the forgiving fans, as well as having roasts with Hall of Famers, and his former teammates.  If the baseball community can forgive Rose, why should he not be allowed to be rewarded for his impressive career?  Teammates and managers that he “cheated” forgave him and thanked him for his contribution to baseball, a response that I agree with considering he is the all-time hits leader as well as games played and many other milestones.  Why can the Hall not do the same? It is also interesting with the argument that in an age of steroids, should that weigh on the decision? So far, there are no admitted steroid users in the Hall of Fame; players like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds have not been voted in.  So really, should all cheaters be treated the shame no matter what kind of cheating?

            As I have brought up in the above paragraph, I have a few questions leading my research further: should the age of steroids affect a reconsideration of Rose’s eligibility?  Why do the Hall and Selig refuse to forgive Rose while most of baseball already has?  Should all cheaters be punished the same?  I want to find out the exact punishments for gambling as well as steroids.  I also want to find out more about whether or not Selig is seriously considering giving rose a pardon.