Originally Posted by Exhibitman
(Post 1391325)
I loved Pete Rose as a kid; even wrote a fan letter and got a signed photo. But he did it. The Dowd Report documented his alleged bets on 52 Reds games in 1987.
The rule is crystal clear: "Rule 21 Misconduct, (d) Betting on Ball Games, Any player, umpire, or club, or league official, or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."
Rose repeatedly admitted he broke that rule. In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted to betting on Reds games. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. In March 2007, during an interview on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio, Rose said, "I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team," he said. "I did everything in my power every night to win that game."
So, Rose admittedly broke the one rule that calls for the 'death penalty' in baseball. He is properly permanently ineligible for a position in baseball. But the HOF was not part of that regime. On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted formally to exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame by way of the Baseball Writers Association of America vote. He would have been eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee in 2007, but did not appear on the ballot. In 2008 the Veterans Committee barred players and managers on the ineligible list from consideration.
This last bit bothers me. Rose broke a MLB rule that carries the sport's version of a death penalty. I believe he should be 'dead' to MLB--permanently ineligible for work--but the rules keeping him out of the HOF did not exist at the time of his offenses. That is an example of an ex post facto criminal law. Clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 and Clause 1 of Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution prohibit the Federal government and state governments from passing criminal laws that criminalize and punish past conduct that was not criminal at the time of the offense. Punishing Pete Rose for old offenses with new rules that expand his punishment is not how we do things. I think he is entitled to a vote of the Veterans' Committee. Now, does that open a potential can of worms for all of the ineligible players? Maybe. But I don't think the current situation is fair to Rose.
|
