Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Monday, July 27, 2009
Update on Pete Rose

Late update from my initial post on reports that Bud Selig is considering reinstating Pete Rose. The updated ESPN story suggests that initial reports were overstated and that, while Selig is "seriously considering" the issue, Rose's status is not changed and Selig is not necessarily close to lifting the ban.

The updated story also quotes former Commissioner Fay Vincent making several points: 1) Rose may not get into the Hall even if he is reinstated because "[t]here is no indication that there's any great support for Pete Rose to get in the Hall of Fame"; 2) Deterrence of gambling would be seriously hampered if Rose is reinstated; and 3) One plan in the works is for Rose to be reinstated only for Hall purposes, but remaining ineligible to serve in any official function within baseball or any of its organizations.

In order: 1) This is unknowable unless we start hearing from all 65 Veterans' Committee members, but I cannot see players holding onto the same hostility about Rose's gambling and (although I have no empirical basis for this) I remain convinced he will be elected overwhelmingly if reinstated; 2) I agree that deterrence will be lost, which is something I was trying to get at in my original post; and 3) the idea of reinstatement-for-some-purposes-and-not-for-others is utterly ridiculous, both because of the double standard and deterrence gap it creates (Vincent's point) and because it is silly on its face--if Rose should be reinstated, it is because MLB considers his misconduct sufficiently behind him that he should be welcomed back into the game and if not, he should not be welcomed in the Hall.


But you forget, baseball is pure about Gambling--ask Willie Mays. Or the late Mickey Mantle. Or Jerry Reinsdorf. Or George Steinbrenner. Or...

Blogger Ken Houghton -- 7/27/2009 10:21 PM  

I think the third suggestion is perhaps a realization that there are people whose contributions to baseball have been fantastic and worth recognizing, while at the same time they have done things that deserve punishment. I would be happy if they opened up the Hall to such players, while still making them permanently ineligible. Realize that Pete Rose circa 1986 deserves honoring, but Pete Rose circa 2009 is not worth associating with.

Blogger Bentley -- 7/28/2009 3:36 PM  

You do have a point here :) I admire the stuff you post and the quality information you offer in your blog! Keep up the good work dude. Please come visit my site Modesto Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.

Blogger poll -- 7/29/2009 9:02 AM  

Me and my friend were arguing about an issue similar to this! Now I know that I was right. lol! Thanks for the information you post. Please come visit my site Fremont Yellow Page Business Directory when you got time.

Blogger poll -- 7/29/2009 9:03 AM  

Selig could correct a major wrong if he not only re-instated Rose's eligibility but automatically put him and Shoe less Joe Jackson into the Hall. Forget a vote , put both of them in right now

Anonymous phentermine 37.5 -- 9/05/2010 1:06 AM  

Post a Comment