So many scandals. Trump and his lap-dog Barr soiling the Justice Department. Senators declining to hear testimony from impeachment witnesses. The government cutting back aid in order to build a wall, while ignoring the infrastructure and climate concerns. Plus, Major League Baseball going easy on clubs that probably stole pennants, while MLB juiced baseballs last year, and now is plotting to gut the hallowed minor-league system, and threatening to tart up the playoff system with a reality-show gimmick. Has everything gone haywire at once? So why am I exorcised about Pete Rose? I had mostly forgotten him, skulking around Las Vegas, where the action is. Then I picked up the NYT this morning and found an op-ed article by two professors, with great credentials, I am sure, saying Rose has done his time and needs to be made eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame. I found myself sputtering. In Rose’s time, there were cardboard placards posted on clubhouse walls, warning players that gambling on baseball was expressly forbidden, upon penalty of expulsion. The signs back then were in English and Spanish, now maybe in Japanese, also. But Pete was above all that. Let me start by saying I was a boy reporter at the Charlie Hustle game in Tampa in March of 1963, when a chesty rookie with the Cincinnati Reds ran from home to first base upon receiving a base on balls. The fat-cat Yankees had won three straight pennants and would win two more, and Mantle-Maris-Berra-Howard-Ford guffawed at the expenditure of so much energy in a spring exhibition, and they bestowed that nickname on him. Apprised of his new nickname, Rose informed reporters, early and often, that he was a different kind of guy. This was how he was taught to play by his dad, a Cincinnati sandlot legend. He was crude, he was self-centered, he was mentored by Frank Robinson and Vada Pinson, and he was talented. He was fun to be around. He loved to talk about the game, bantering with writers, trading baseball knowledge and strategy. He seemed to be a personification of the old game, the dirty, dusty, nasty, spikes-high game. The Big Red Machine accumulated smoother stars like Bench and Morgan and Perez, but Pete was the home-town boy. He was a bundle of energy. A teammate, Bernie Carbo, was quoted as saying the funniest thing he ever saw in baseball was Pete Rose’s greenies kicking in during a rain delay in the clubhouse. We knew Pete had a major gambling jones. On our annual spring sojourn to the dog track or jail-alai fronton near Tampa, we would see Pete, clearly a regular, moving fast, flashing $100 bills. When the Mets visited Cincinnati, he had tips on the daily action at River Downs racetrack. Fast forward to the revelations that Pete, while managing the Reds, was betting on baseball games – but only on the Reds, to win, or so his story went. By that time, people knew more about gambling addiction – how ultimately there is no limit. If Rose bet on the Reds one day (when his ace was pitching) but did not bet on them the next day (when a lesser pitcher was starting, or perhaps a star was limited by an injury, which only a manager or a trainer would know), his decision was a tipoff to bookies and others with access to Rose’s bets. Baseball investigated, got the goods on Pete, and confronted him. He could have admitted reality – but we can surely think of other damaged individuals out there in the world, who cannot process details, who are lacking any trace of conscience, of morality, who think they are above the law. In a time when people with alcohol and drug addictions were getting treatment, Rose stonewalled investigators, infuriating Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, who banished Rose from baseball. I was there that day. Giamatti was quivering with anger. A few days later, on a vacation Giamatti died of a heart attack. The legacy of that case is: Pete Killed Bart. Also, baseball had more evidence on Rose’s transgressions than on any one of the stars who used steroids in another epidemic a decade and two later. Baseball has not banned steroid suspects but has left the Hall of Fame question up to the writers who vote. NYT writers are not allowed to vote for any award, in any field, and in retirement I honor that rule. I feel sentimental about the swaggering home-boy who lit up my first decade in covering baseball. But he broke a rule and has never faced it. Keeping Pete Rose ineligible sets a standard for the Hall, and now it is up to the voters to make their individual decisions about subsequent stars who were ingesting steroids that allowed them to muscle a ball over a fence. I don’t think baseball has handled the steroid era well, and I’m not quite sure what more it can do about the bang-the-garbage-can-lid era. Declare the championships “vacated” as college basketball has done in one scandal or another? The personal disgrace to talented players and fired managers are not small steps. I relish the memories of Pete Rose playing ball and talking baseball in the clubhouse, but I don’t see any reason to reinstate him for membership in the Hall of Fame. Now, more than ever, we need some minimal bottom-line standards of what is acceptable and what is not. * * * The case for reinstating Pete Rose: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/opinion/pete-rose-baseball.html
John McDermott
2/12/2020 11:14:51 am
I suppose he can always hope for a Presidential Medal of Freedom. The standards for which have recently been so dramatically lowered. But the HOF has its standards and should be honored for maintaining them. Rose knew full well very well what he was doing, and risking.
Gene Palumbo
2/12/2020 11:15:53 am
Excellent, George. I'm serious when I say the Times should run this as a response to the op ed you referred to.
Hansen Alexander
2/12/2020 11:38:27 am
Well George,
Gene Palumbo
2/12/2020 01:47:25 pm
Hansen,
George
2/12/2020 03:48:55 pm
Gene, meet Hansen. Hansen, meet Gene.
Hansen Alexander
2/13/2020 01:07:37 pm
LOL. Actually George,
George
2/13/2020 01:29:59 pm
Hansen/Gene: I meant to add, both have magnificent wives. GV 2/12/2020 03:06:26 pm
Tom Callahan tells a wonderful story about the time, when he was covering baseball for the Cincinnati paper, entering the clubhouse before a game and being asked by Rose, "Hey, Tom. Is it going to rain?"
George Vecsey
2/12/2020 03:59:52 pm
John, you were around Pete as a player, I am sure. I was out of sports in 1975 but Dick Schaap got me to do a Sport Magazine piece on Sparky Anderson, hence, I was at the World Series. One game was delayed by a deluge and maybe a dozen reporters hung out in Sparky's office and Pete wandered in, holding a bat, as players do, not menacingly at all, and he talked baseball for an hour. Maybe that was the greenies (players got very talkative on greenies, as you know) and it was just fun to hear what Pete thought of stuff. He talked to reporters as equals -- he knew they knew the game. I hate that he squandered that love of the game. I will never believe he did anything to affect a game, certainly as a player. But we (that is to say, I) know that gamblers wind up doing some twisted and self-damaging stuff.) GV
Marty Appel
2/12/2020 03:13:55 pm
I was shocked that Times editors let that flawed column run. First of all, Pete bet on the Reds while he was a player, not just a manager - the betting slips are in the Dowd Report. Secondly, he bet selectively, not every day. Why selectively? Perhaps it was a message to his bookies that the Reds were not going to win that day. (PS - please wipe out my debts in exchange). Even if it wasn't, casting suspicion on the outcome of games is crime enough. And of course, he lied about it all. Sorry Pete, it was the ultimate baseball crime and you weren't above the law. Times should have had better oversight on this column.
bruce
2/14/2020 12:52:05 pm
george, Comments are closed.
|
Categories
All
|