20 years later, Pete Rose

[TheoBallgame]

2009 will mark 20 years since Pete Rose was banished from baseball and locked out of the hall of fame. Is it time to do the right thing and induct Charlie Hustle?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

2009 will mark 20 years since Pete Rose was banished from baseball and locked out of the hall of fame. Is it time to do the right thing and induct Charlie Hustle?

He broke the rules and then he lied about it for about 17 years.

[Brad Harris]

Selig could show some class for once by giving Rose's application the consideration due it. Rose deserves an answer. The fans deserve resolution. The Commissioner needs to give an answer - one way or another - and to lay this to rest.

By the way, Rose lying about it or being remorseful has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the rules should be applied to him.

[steelcurtain76]

He was my idol growing up, but he gambled on the game while active in it. I think his lifetime ban should stand. He knew the rules, knew the consequence of breaking the rules, broke them, and then lied about it for 17 years. No HOF for Pete.

[Brian McKenna]

He was my idol growing up, but he gambled on the game while active in it. I think his lifetime ban should stand. He knew the rules, knew the consequence of breaking the rules, broke them, and then lied about it for 17 years. No HOF for Pete.

Almost my opinion to the word. I just have to shake my head at how my childhood memories are now tainted by the b.s. Rose and O.J. Simpson put us through.

That Rose deserves an answer or any respect from MLB strikes me as a complete joke.

[OleMissCub]

He was my idol growing up, but he gambled on the game while active in it. I think his lifetime ban should stand. He knew the rules, knew the consequence of breaking the rules, broke them, and then lied about it for 17 years. No HOF for Pete.

He was banned from the MLB, not the HOF. They are different entities.

[Captain Cold Nose]

He was banned from the MLB, not the HOF. They are different entities.

Is is very much in the HOF's best interests to follow what MLB does in that regard. The relationship is completely beneficial to them. Why break from them about a player who broke the one single rule players are told not to break?

[Brad Harris]

That Rose deserves an answer or any respect from MLB strikes me as a complete joke.
The Commissioner's Office - and by that I mean Bud Selig - hasn't taken a stand one way or another because to do so would inevitably be unpopular with (at the least) a vocal minority of fans. Selig is hoping the issue just goes away; take is on his side after all; same issue as with Selig's non-decision at the All-Star Game a few years back. The Commissioner refuses to exercise strong leadership because to do so would invite criticism for those who disagree with him and Selig didn't get where he is today through the bold assertion of princled opinions.

Furthermore there's still the taint remaining from how Giamatti dealt with Rose in a less-than-honest way from the outset.

Rose was guilty of betting on baseball. He knowingly broke that rule. He lost the respect of the baseball community for that (and deservedly so). He has continued to act shamelessly and in the manner of a very calculated self-interest ever since. None of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is that Baseball needs to take the moral high road in this. Baseball needs to lead on the issue. Baseball needs to resolve the issue. Baseball can't simply mistreat Rose because Rose mistreated it. Baseball's can't ignore a problem and hope it goes away in time.

What I'm railing against, of course, isn't the lack of respect Rose is receiving, but the lack of leadership from Commissioner Selig. Two wrongs don't make a right and it is the right thing to do for Selig to answer Rose's application and to put this to bed once and for all with a public statement in support of his decision.

[jalbright]

Why break from them about a player who broke the one single rule players are told not to break?

A small quibble: Joe Jackson broke an even more cardinal rule than Pete did, and that's assuming he didn't play in a manner to further the conspiracy.

[Captain Cold Nose]

A small quibble: Joe Jackson broke an even more cardinal rule than Pete did, and that's assuming he didn't play in a manner to further the conspiracy.

Quibble with my post? Joe Jackson's not in, either, on the same grounds. He certainly was part of a worse act. That was understood. The banishment rule was created to make sure the writers continued to "understand".

[KCGHOST]

Pete Rose can rot in purgatory forever. This mess is all of his doing. You guys are saying Selig has no class when we are discussing a guy who lied to his own believers for fifteen years and then when he decides to fess up he does it in a book that is released as the results of the HoF election is announced so that he can a) make a buck and b) overshadow the new electees (Molitor and Eckersley).

[jalbright]

Rose gambled, but there's no evidence even 20 years later that he took money or in any way fixed games. Jackson certainly took dirty money, and may have played to fix games.

[Freakshow]

I say let the voters vote. Rose should be made eligible for the VC election of 2009. It would be quite a humiliation for him to be denied the Hall by a jury of his peers. The Hall would need to stress that its rules be adhered to by the voters, particularly the words "integrity" and "character".

[Captain Cold Nose]

Rose gambled, but there's no evidence even 20 years later that he took money or in any way fixed games. Jackson certainly took dirty money, and may have played to fix games.

Of all the things Michael Sokolove wrote about Rose shortly after the banning, and he nailed him for every little thing, from having the audacity to hanging out with his black teammates when it wasn't viewed as a good thing to do (how that could be portrayed as a bad thing I have no idea) to just dismissing all he did as a result of his hard play, not that he was even a good player, not once does he intimate that Rose's gambling was anything more than that, just an addiction and not something more sinister.

If Sokolove didn't say so, then nobody really can.

[Brad Harris]

I say let the voters vote. Rose should be made eligible for the VC election of 2009. It would be quite a humiliation for him to be denied the Hall by a jury of his peers. The Hall would need to stress that its rules be adhered to by the voters, particularly the words "integrity" and "character".
I agree. I understand the Hall has a right to fix its own rules. I understand its desire to work in concert with MLB, but the fact is that all Ineligible Listed players are not equally guilty of "character", "integrity" or "sportsmanship" issues. It's been used to blacklist people. It was used to railroad Buck Weaver (who would be the poster boy for injustice here if he'd had a little better career.) MLB isn't infallible and its decisions aren't beyond questioning. The voters should have the opportunity to exercise their own judgment, based on the guidelines the Hall provides. The exclusionary rule wasn't instigated to reinforce the character/integrity clauses, but rather to keep Rose out of the Hall. It was a rule targeted at an individual candidate. Those were poor motives indeed. Dan hits the nail on the head here. Leave it in the voters' hands. The Hall maintained that policy from 1936-1991; they changed a rule that had worked just fine in the past for political convenience not because it was the right thing to do.

[KCGHOST]

The Ineligible List only effects two players: Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. None of the others had HoF worthy careers. The voters had 50+ years in which they could have elected Joe Jackson had they a mind to. Wisely they showed good judgment and didn't. Thus the IL really is only for one guy.

This may seem unfair but this is a different world we live in today where spin doctors are the lords of information and the people who talk about the news are more important than the accuracy of the news they deliver. Had the IL not existed the BBWAA had about talked itself into a position where it might have elected Rose had they been able to vote on him. The rallying cry of his servants in the media was that he never bet on games he managed. He maintained that lie for 15+ years before coming clean.

Now if you think he can lie for 15+ years about not betting on games he managed and you still want to put him on the ballot because he says he never bet on games he managed then you are one gullible puppy.

[dgarza]

The Ineligible List only effects two players: Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. None of the others had HoF worthy careers.
Cicotte???

[Paul Wendt]

2009 will mark 20 years since Pete Rose was banished from baseball and locked out of the hall of fame. Is it time to do the right thing and induct Charlie Hustle?
The 19th anniversary is next month. We should wait until summer to revisit the Giamatti-Rose affair, although Selig should make a timely ruling if there is such a thing.
I agree. I understand the Hall has a right to fix its own rules. I understand its desire to work in concert with MLB, but the fact is that all Ineligible Listed players are not equally guilty of "character", "integrity" or "sportsmanship" issues. It's been used to blacklist people.
Not only has it been used to blacklist people but it is a blacklist: people ineligible for employment in baseball. Once it was important to cover everyone who plays in any game with anyone ineligible. Today it seems important to cover other kinds of appearances. That coverage may work by specific rulings, eg whether Cincinnati may hold Pete Rose Day.

The exclusionary rule wasn't instigated to reinforce the character/integrity clauses, but rather to keep Rose out of the Hall. It was a rule targeted at an individual candidate.
Is it likely that he would have been elected? Rose would have dominated the event. There was coverage of his eligibility but didn't coincide with announcement of the election results (or with induction). Something like 14 or 14% of the writers voted for Rose and that was a non-story. Probably that was the point, to put him on simmer.

Does Selig hope it will go away?
He wouldn't be the first homo sapiens to take hopeful inaction.
Compare his own handling of Barry Bonds 755 and 756.

[jjpm74]

Cicotte???

Hal Chase?

I would also argue Buck Weaver and he probably deserves to be reinstated more than any of the others who conspired to throw the World Series since there is some evidence to suggest that Eddie Collins had some direct knowledge of the fix but did not want to squeal on his teammates. If that's the case, the league looked the other way on Collins but not Weaver. Even if it is not the case, I'm sure there were a lot of players during that era who knew who the crooked players were but did not say anything.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That would be the right thing. Selig could show some class for once by giving Rose's application the consideration due it. Rose deserves an answer. The fans deserve resolution. The Commissioner needs to give an answer - one way or another - and to lay this to rest.

By the way, Rose lying about it or being remorseful has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the rules should be applied to him.

This is the most sensible post on Pete Rose I have read in a while.

"AMEN" to the italicized quote.

My issue with the ban on Pete Rose is that there ought to be a difference in the penalty for betting on games and throwing games. There is no evidence that Rose threw games, or attempted to throw games, or even discussed throwing games.

I believe that his application for reinstatement should be granted. I believe it should be conditional, but the conditions (gamblers' anonymous meetings, polygraph tests) should only be imposed IF Rose actually accepts employment as a manager or coach. There is no reason to bar Rose from the HOF or from Old-Timers games, etc.

Baseball has a problem. It's own posturing has kept its all time hits leader out of the HOF. On top of that, excessive sanctimony is poised to keep MLB's leading career HR leader out of the HOF. If anyone thinks that it's not a big PR problem for baseball when the two players holding THOSE PARTICULAR IMPORTANT RECORDS are outside the HOF, well, they're naive.

Rose is a jerk, but he's NOT a latter day Black Sox. It's time to sharpen the distinction between Rose and the Black Sox. History deserves that much.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He was banned from the MLB, not the HOF. They are different entities.

The HOF enacted a rule stating that players under current suspension are ineligible for enshrinement into the HOF.

It's the HOF's rule, but the HOF enacted it at the request of MLB right after Rose's suspension.

[Brad Harris]

The Ineligible List only effects two players: Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. None of the others had HoF worthy careers. The voters had 50+ years in which they could have elected Joe Jackson had they a mind to. Wisely they showed good judgment and didn't. Thus the IL really is only for one guy.

This may seem unfair but this is a different world we live in today where spin doctors are the lords of information and the people who talk about the news are more important than the accuracy of the news they deliver. Had the IL not existed the BBWAA had about talked itself into a position where it might have elected Rose had they been able to vote on him. The rallying cry of his servants in the media was that he never bet on games he managed. He maintained that lie for 15+ years before coming clean.

Now if you think he can lie for 15+ years about not betting on games he managed and you still want to put him on the ballot because he says he never bet on games he managed then you are one gullible puppy.
First off, you can put the attitude on ice. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're coming from the position of a former Rose fan who feels betrayed at being lied to, but I'm not going to draw assumptions like you've apparently done with me.

I think Rose is guilty as sin. I didn't say I want to put him in the Hall of Fame. I think the voters should be able to determine whether or not his "sins" are enough to outweigh his achievements. I don't want to put him on the ballot because of anything Rose did or didn't do, I think all players on the Ineligible List deserve the opportunity to be considered by the voters.

My point isn't that Pete is deserving of election - or that any of the names on the Ineligible List necessarily are - but that players with good careers who've done nothing wrong have been added on the ballot and MLB retains those players on the Ineligible List long after their death for no good reason. The sole logical reason to maintain a name on that list after the individual's passing (now) is to exclude the individual from Hall of Fame consideration. Talk about punishing someone beyond the grave. What other institution does something similar?

To disallow the voters any say in a player's case is to tell the voters their best judgment isn't trusted when it comes to considering cases that involve integrity, sportsmanship and character. Frankly there are few instances where those intangibles come into play that would affect a Hall case where the player wasn't suspended or banned from the game. Either the Hall alters this clause in the eligibility rules and trusts its voters to do what's "right" or it removes the "integrity, sportsmanship and character" clause from the voting guidelines. Trying to have it both ways is nonsensical and creates a double-standard (one we're now seeing applied to alleged steroid users who never failed a drug test and/or were suspended from the game.)

There's a compromise I would support, but the self-righteous crowd doesn't seem interested in budging even an inch, no matter how reasonable. My solution? Simple...MLB removes an individual from the Ineligible List upon that individual's death. That person would never live to even see their name come before the voters and would breathe their last never having a guarantee of ever being remembered differently, certainly not of being elected. In this way, the ban period would still act as a buffer between the early years after a player's career ended (when his supporters were the most hot and bothered about his ineligibility) and a time when cooler heads could prevail.

KC, we've batted things around on this board for a long time. Please let's neither of us allow our passion for the topic to devolve into insinuations and name calling. On either of our parts. ;)

Best!

[henrich]

To disallow the voters any say in a player's case is to tell the voters their best judgment isn't trusted when it comes to considering cases that involve integrity, sportsmanship and character. Frankly there are few instances where those intangibles come into play that would affect a Hall case where the player wasn't suspended or banned from the game. Either the Hall alters this clause in the eligibility rules and trusts its voters to do what's "right" or it removes the "integrity, sportsmanship and character" clause from the voting guidelines. Trying to have it both ways is nonsensical and creates a double-standard (one we're now seeing applied to alleged steroid users who never failed a drug test and/or were suspended from the game.)
I love this paragraph above. I wholeheartedly agree.

There's a compromise I would support, but the self-righteous crowd doesn't seem interested in budging even an inch, no matter how reasonable. My solution? Simple...MLB removes an individual from the Ineligible List upon that individual's death. That person would never live to even see their name come before the voters and would breathe their last never having a guarantee of ever being remembered differently, certainly not of being elected. In this way, the ban period would still act as a buffer between the early years after a player's career ended (when his supporters were the most hot and bothered about his ineligibility) and a time when cooler heads could prevail.
I would suggest future employment within MLB being banned. I read somewhere a long time ago about how people in the betting world would watch to see which games Pete would bet on and they would know that he was going to manage it as though it were game 7 of the world series. True he never bet against his own team, but if there's a bet on Tuesday by Rose, and he leaves in his best relief pitcher for 3 innings and is unable to use him the next day isn't he trading one win for a possible loss the next day? That may not be the best example, but I do think it resonated something with me, that you may not want to lose or bet against yourself, but it means there's a different level of competitive juice flowing through your veins.

Banned but still eligible for the Hall. Let the chips fall where they may. We have a capitalist society for a reason, people can make up their own minds including the writers, I have a lot of faith in humanity to do the right thing. When Selig and Vincent (Giamatti, perhaps) pursued with an iron fist, it showed they were afraid for the integrity of the game.

To ban until after death, I think is still too cruel. I would rather them live with their mistakes and see redemption, forgiveness, or come to grips with their sins and move on.

[henrich]

Baseball has a problem. It's own posturing has kept its all time hits leader out of the HOF. On top of that, excessive sanctimony is poised to keep MLB's leading career HR leader out of the HOF. If anyone thinks that it's not a big PR problem for baseball when the two players holding THOSE PARTICULAR IMPORTANT RECORDS are outside the HOF, well, they're naive.
Clemens the 2nd best pitcher ever may be excluded now too. That's the trifecta-Bonds, Rose and Clemens. What kind of Hall is that if you exclude the likes of their performances?

[JDD]

They could always put Rose in after he dies. That is a weird thought to have, but it would punish the man (to some degree) and give the fans something to talk about when they walk thru the museum.

I am sure the above thought is not a very popular idea, but I have had that opinion for a very long time.

[DoubleX]

Rose should never be put in, IMO. Gambling is something baseball can absolutely not tolerate, particularly given the history. Rose's ban serves as a poignant reminder of this.

What troubles me most about Rose is that little by little, he admits to more and more questionable activity. How far did he really go? He has admitted to betting on games he managed right? What was to stop him altering the outcome of the games based on a bet? Seriously, it is not far-fetched at all to think that there may have been an occasion or two where Rose owed money based on past losing bets, and in order to satisfy the debt, he managed in such a way to hold the Reds back in a game.

[jalbright]

Rose should never be put in, IMO. Gambling is something baseball can absolutely not tolerate, particularly given the history. Rose's ban serves as a poignant reminder of this.

What troubles me most about Rose is that little by little, he admits to more and more questionable activity. How far did he really go? He has admitted to betting on games he managed right? What was to stop him altering the outcome of the games based on a bet? Seriously, it is not far-fetched at all to think that there may have been an occasion or two where Rose owed money based on past losing bets, and in order to satisfy the debt, he managed in such a way to hold the Reds back in a game.

Lots of things are possible. But, counselor, when a guy consorts with so many lowlifes so ready to sell him out to further themselves and the avaialable evidence is that Pete gambled the same amount on Reds games every time, and bet on only the Reds, and bet on them every chance he got, how much evidence is there to support that supposition? Buppkus, nada, nothing. I find it far-fetched that 20 years later we'd have so little to support such a scenario if it in fact occurred under the circumstances. Pete may go quite a while until he dies, and I'm willing to see if anything else materializes in that time on the fixing scenario and to deny him the personal satisfaction of seeing himself honored by the game. That would serve as a rather "poignant reminder" of the cost of gambling on baseball, wouldn't it? If anything materializes to substantiate the fixing scenario, well, then we could get into "Joe Jackson can rot in hell for eternity before baseball honors him" territory.

[DoubleX]

Lots of things are possible. But, counselor, when a guy consorts with so many lowlifes so ready to sell him out to further themselves and the avaialable evidence is that Pete gambled the same amount on Reds games every time, and bet on only the Reds, and bet on them every chance he got, how much evidence is there to support that supposition? Buppkus, nada, nothing. I find it far-fetched that 20 years later we'd have so little to support such a scenario if it in fact occurred under the circumstances. Pete may go quite a while until he dies, and I'm willing to see if anything else materializes in that time on the fixing scenario and to deny him the personal satisfaction of seeing himself honored by the game. That would serve as a rather "poignant reminder" of the cost of gambling on baseball, wouldn't it? If anything materializes to substantiate the fixing scenario, well, then we could get into "Joe Jackson can rot in hell for eternity before baseball honors him" territory.

When you're the manager of a MLB baseball team and are immersed in the gambling underworld, that is a very fine line and a situation that I do not think deserves the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps Rose did not get into fixing, but he certainly placed himself in a situation where he could certainly be susceptible to pressures to fix. We seem to learn a little more about Rose's activities every few years and I don't think we know the whole story yet. And even today, if you want a good chance of seeing Rose, go to Caesar's in Las Vegas - the guy just cannot separate himself from the gambling community. Doesn't seem like a guy who wants to do all he can to clean up his image and be reinstated, despite what he outwardly professes.

This isn't a court of law, this is baseball's integrity we're talking about, and you just can't have a person that can significantly impact games, such as a manager, immersed in the gambling world, to the point where he is at least betting on games he's managing. It's not a leap at all to think he did more.

[jalbright]

No question Pete does not belong in baseball. I'm not beginning to argue that. I'm saying that if there isn't more evidence than we have now (none save suspicion) when he dies, then we should look seriously at having his punishment be "lifetime" rather than "eternal". If there was such a conspiracy on the Pete Rose ship of lowlifes, don't you think that somebody in that motley crew would have sold him out by now? That group would sell family members for a McDonald's hamburger and fries.

Indeed, one of the tragedies of the Rose situation is that Pete hasn't owned up to his own compulsive gambling. That's a major cause of all the lying IMO--he'd have to admit he had a gambling problem, and overcome it. Ten years after he's gone, his family will be able to bemoan his addiction to gambling and plead on his behalf then--and it will be far more effective than the unapologetic Pete has been.

Moreover, if we don't insist on some evidence against Pete on this far more serious charge, how are we to deal with unsubstantiated allegations of juicing? There has to be at least some smoke before we're allowed to yell "Fire!" IMHO.

[DoubleX]

No question Pete does not belong in baseball. I'm not beginning to argue that. I'm saying that if there isn't more evidence than we have now (none save suspicion) when he dies, then we should look seriously at having his punishment be "lifetime" rather than "eternal". If there was such a conspiracy on the Pete Rose ship of lowlifes, don't you think that somebody in that motley crew would have sold him out by now? That group would sell family members for a McDonald's hamburger and fries.

Indeed, one of the tragedies of the Rose situation is that Pete hasn't owned up to his own compulsive gambling. That's a major cause of all the lying IMO--he'd have to admit he had a gambling problem, and overcome it. Ten years after he's gone, his family will be able to bemoan his addiction to gambling and plead on his behalf then--and it will be far more effective than the unapologetic Pete has been.

Moreover, if we don't insist on some evidence against Pete on this far more serious charge, how are we to deal with unsubstantiated allegations of juicing? There has to be at least some smoke before we're allowed to yell "Fire!" IMHO.

Just because we haven't heard anything yet, doesn't mean we never will. Rose denied for years he did anything, then admitted he did. Then Rose denied for years he bet on the Reds, then I believe he admitted he did. So what's next? Who is to say that is the end? Like I said, given the people Rose was associated with and how far we know he went, it's not a leap at all to think he could have gone further. If nothing else, he put himself in an extremely compromising situation in which gambling could once again easily infect baseball. A message should be sent - do not bring gambling into baseball on any level, baseball just can't afford it.

[jalbright]

But my aargument is based on the assumption that we won't hear anything to substantiate the charge by the time of Pete's death. If we don't hear anything by then or soon thereafter (and it may well be quite a few years as Pete is 67, which I would guess would mean a life expectancy of approximately another 20 years), it sure doesn't seem likely we will ever do so. Don't we have to go by the principle that there must be some evidence on which to convict on the charge of game fixing?

Now, you can certainly make the separate argument that what he did merits an eternal ban. But, given that the initial suspension was expressly reviewable in five years, is that what was initially envisioned? Of course, Pete didn't come clean, which should and did push back the timetable, but at 20 years plus the rest of his lifetime after those twenty years seems a great deal of punishment for a man who in essence was a compulsive gambler. He was an addict of gambling. Pete's not the one to make that plea, at least not until he owns up to that--but his family can and probably will after his death if he's still not in the Hall. And the current image of Pete the lying so-and-so will slowly fade into the woodwork--but the image of Charlie Hustle will live on, as will the Hit King bit.

[brett]

I firmly believe that Rose WANTS to remain the "victim." It probably increases discussion about him on sites like this 20 fold. It makes him far richer.

[Paul Wendt]

Captain CN quoted and replied in #7
> Originally Posted by OleMissCub
> He was banned from the MLB, not the HOF. They are different entities.

It is very much in the HOF's best interests to follow what MLB does in that regard. The relationship is completely beneficial to them. Why break from them about a player who broke the one single rule players are told not to break?
He continued in #11
The banishment rule was created to make sure the writers continued to "understand".
He knows.

Probably some of you have access to the historical NYTimes. See Murray Chass, "Hall of Fame Panel Moves to Keep Pete Rose Out" NYT 1991-01-11.

Highlights:
- A special committee yesterday voted 7-3 (two absent) to recommend "a change in the admission rules to exclude any person banned from baseball." Presumably the BOD will approve at its meeting Feb 4 "since the committee was created by the board after the Rose case had raised public debate over his suitability for membership."

- BBWAA voting members generally support his appearance on the ballot

- 3 votes against: Phil Pepe, BBWAA past president; Jack Lang, BBWAA secretary-treasurer; Edward Stack, Hall of Fame president and chairman.
Mr. Stack said he opposed the change because he believed the writers' associatoin "had done a very commendable job on eligibility matters."
"I felt a jury should decide who belongs in the hall and the writers should be that jury," he said.

- Most vocal advocates, according to Pepe: Lee MacPhail, AL past president; Bobby Brown, AL president.
Evidently MacPhail also spoke to the press.
Mr. MacPhail said that he was not concerned about how the writers might vote in the first year Mr. Rose would be eligible, but "five years down the road, who knows?"
"People might feel that he had paid his debt to society," he said.

- 7 votes in favor: MacPhail; Brown; Chub Feeney, NL past president; John McHale, Montreal Expos past president; Charles Segar*, commissioner's office past executive; Robin Roberts; Buck O'Neill.

- 2 absent: Bill White, NL president; Whitey Ford

- Kit Stier, BBWAA president, says he is "strongly disturbed"; he will contact chapters and determine how they feel. "I hope to have a formal plan by our next meeting in July."

- Board of Directors (16 members):
6 special cmte members: MacPhail, Brown, Feeney, McHale, Stack, White.

10 others: Vincent, commissioner; Kuhn, past commissioner; Selig, Milwaukee owner; Campbell, Detroit CEO; Yawkey, Boston majority owner; Stephen Clark Jr., Clark family; Harold Hollis, Cooperstown mayor; Bob Broeg, writer; Roy Campanella; Charlie Gehringer.

--
(Segar may be a former newpaper baseball writer. He was a member of the veterans committee 1953-1995(!)]. Gehringer too had served all 38 years on the VC. Broeg had served years on the VC. Campanella had served 21 years on the Negro Leagues Cmte, then the VC.)

[highpockets]

Now, you can certainly make the separate argument that what he did merits an eternal ban. But, given that the initial suspension was expressly reviewable in five years, is that what was initially envisioned? Of course, Pete didn't come clean, which should and did push back the timetable, but at 20 years plus the rest of his lifetime after those twenty years seems a great deal of punishment for a man who in essence was a compulsive gambler.
Sorry to jump in, but I don't believe that punishing Pete Rose is the reason for keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. It's that people who bet on baseball don't belong there, dead or alive.

[MyDogSparty]

The Commissioner's Office - and by that I mean Bud Selig - hasn't taken a stand one way or another because to do so would inevitably be unpopular with (at the least) a vocal minority of fans. Selig is hoping the issue just goes away; take is on his side after all; same issue as with Selig's non-decision at the All-Star Game a few years back. The Commissioner refuses to exercise strong leadership because to do so would invite criticism for those who disagree with him and Selig didn't get where he is today through the bold assertion of princled opinions.

Furthermore there's still the taint remaining from how Giamatti dealt with Rose in a less-than-honest way from the outset.

Rose was guilty of betting on baseball. He knowingly broke that rule. He lost the respect of the baseball community for that (and deservedly so). He has continued to act shamelessly and in the manner of a very calculated self-interest ever since. None of that has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is that Baseball needs to take the moral high road in this. Baseball needs to lead on the issue. Baseball needs to resolve the issue. Baseball can't simply mistreat Rose because Rose mistreated it. Baseball's can't ignore a problem and hope it goes away in time.

What I'm railing against, of course, isn't the lack of respect Rose is receiving, but the lack of leadership from Commissioner Selig. Two wrongs don't make a right and it is the right thing to do for Selig to answer Rose's application and to put this to bed once and for all with a public statement in support of his decision.

meh...To Rose (and those who want him reinstated) the only "proper consideration" to his application IS reinstatement. I don't think that if Selig comes out and says "after seriously considering Pete's reinstatement application, he's still going to be banned from MLB because he broke the rules" that it's going to END there. I hardly think Selig's verdict will matter. As long as Rose is alive it's never going to end. He and his cohorts will continue to claim that Selig must not have considered things "enough" because Rose is still banned and not in the HOF.

[Captain Cold Nose]

meh...To Rose (and those who want him reinstated) the only "proper consideration" to his application IS reinstatement. I don't think that if Selig comes out and says "after seriously considering Pete's reinstatement application, he's still going to be banned from MLB because he broke the rules" that it's going to END there. I hardly think Selig's verdict will matter. As long as Rose is alive it's never going to end. He and his cohorts will continue to claim that Selig must not have considered things "enough" because Rose is still banned and not in the HOF.

His cohorts are getting less and less in number. Johnny Bench, for one, won't even talk about it anymore. Basically, he's says Rose knew what he was doing and knew what would happen and still did it anyway.

It's called consequences.