Quote:
|
Why do you think a Pete Rose lie(s) is so dastardly and unforgivable?
|
As a player-manager, Rose gambled on games involving his team. The integrity of the sport is compromised when a player, coach or executive can engineer the outcome of games for his own pecuniary benefit. If left unchecked, such behavior would turn MLB into the WWE.
Had Rose only gambled on his team once, then I would agree that a shorter suspension would be appropriate. Baseball players are human beings and everyone deserves a second chance. But Rose repeatedly gambled on Reds games, and when confronted about his misconduct, lied about it. First he claimed that he had never gambled at all. Then he claimed he never gambled on baseball. Then he claimed he never gambled on the Reds. Then he claimed he only gambled on the Reds to win. There's a credibility problem here. Why should we believe that Rose only gambled for the Reds to win when he's already been caught lying several times before? Furthermore, even if he did only gamble on his team to win, that still affects the outcome of games. Perhaps he put his worst hitters into the game from the 7th inning on to preserve run differentials. Maybe he overworked pitchers in an effort to go all-out on nights where he had money on the line.
A 5 year suspension would have been appropriate only if this had been an isolated incident for Rose and only if he immediately admitted to the full extent of the offense. The long-term nature of the gambling, along with the decades of lying, make a permanent ban appropriate. Rose should never be in a position where he can again influence the outcome of games, nor should he be given the honor of Cooperstown enshrinement. I'd be willing to allow him back into baseball as a scout, or spring training instructor, nothing more.
Gambling in baseball is something that bothers me a lot because of the way it directly affects the outcomes of games. I would be very strict about all forms of baseball betting. My fellow Red Sox fans gave me a hard time over this, but I was disappointed that the league did not punish Jonathan Papelbon last year for making a bet with other Red Sox players about the closer's performance. The deal was that if Papelbon made it through April without surrendering a single run, he would have to shave his head into a mohawk. If he did give up a run, he could leave his hair the way he preferred it. Some people saw this as just a harmless and silly little bet. I saw it as a violation of the integrity of the sport. What if Papelbon had decided on April 30th to intentionally blow a save so that he wouldn't have to shave his head? Alternatively, what if he honestly blew the save that night but no one believed him? Either way, you'd at least have an appearance of impropriety and the team would potentially have one less victory as a result of it. If the Red Sox then missed the playoffs by one game, you could point to the Papelbon bet as the difference. As it turned out, Papelbon made it through April without giving up a run, and shaved his head into a mohawk. But I still would have punished him to send the message that the league will not condone any form of player gambling that affects the outcome of games, particularly when it involves a negative like striking out or giving up runs.