Apparently it’s OK to gamble on baseball now, even those involving your own team, while making a mockery out of the sport’s most sacred rule.
You want to cheat, lie, go to prison for tax evasion and be accused of statutory rape, hey, all is forgiven.
You learn in journalism school that you can’t libel the dead.
Who knew that once you’re dead, all could be forgiven too?
Pete Rose, who gambled on baseball as manager of the Cincinnati Reds and lied about it for 15 years before dying September 2024 at the age of 83, had his Hall of Fame chances resurrected by commissioner Rob Manfred.
Manfred announced, on the eve of Pete Rose Day in Cincinnati, that he is lifting Rose’s permanent ban from baseball, and for the first time will be eligible to be elected into the Hall of Fame.
Manfred, while ruling that the permanent ineligibility of players ends upon their death, also cleared everyone from the 1919 Black Sox scandal, who deliberately fixed games during the World Series.
Pete Rose, Major League Baseball’s all-time hits leader, remains one of the sport’s most controversial figures due to his lifetime ban for gambling on games while managing the Cincinnati Reds. Despite his on-field accomplishments—4,256 hits, 17 All-Star selections, and three World Series titles—Rose has been barred from Hall of Fame consideration since 1989. Yet in recent years, with evolving public attitudes and the MLB’s growing relationship with legalized sports betting, a reconsideration of his case seems increasingly plausible. If Rose were to be reinstated or allowed Hall of Fame eligibility, it could open the floodgates for other suspended or disgraced players to receive renewed consideration.
Rose’s case is unique but not isolated. Other stars—such as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez—have seen their reputations and Hall of Fame bids tarnished by performance-enhancing drug (PED) scandals. While Rose’s infractions differ in nature, his potential reinstatement could spark a broader conversation about forgiveness, context, and evolving standards. It would force the baseball world to reconcile its hardline stance with a modern understanding of gambling and redemption.
The implications extend beyond the Hall of Fame. If MLB reopens Rose’s case, it could set a precedent for how the league and the public approach historical misconduct. This shift might encourage the reevaluation of other banned players and influence future disciplinary actions. The moral lines once deemed absolute may soften under contemporary scrutiny, especially as baseball itself profits from betting partnerships.
In many ways, Pete Rose’s potential return to good standing would be more than personal vindication—it would signal a transformation in how baseball handles legacy, punishment, and forgiveness. The question is no longer whether he deserves reinstatement, but whether the game is ready for what his reinstatement would mean.
“It’s a serious dark day for baseball," Marcus Giamatti, the 63-year-old son of late former commissioner Bart Giamatti, who permanently suspended Rose in 1989, told USA TODAY Sports. “For my dad, it was all about defending the integrity of baseball. Now, without integrity, I believe the game of baseball, as we know it, will cease to exist. How, without integrity, will the fans ever entrust the purity of the game. …
“The basic principle that the game is built on, fair play, and that integrity is going to be compromised. And the fans are losers. I don’t know how a fan could go and watch a game knowing that what they’re seeing may not be real and fair anymore. That’s a really scary thought."
Post a Comment