Tweet
Tom - to me the difference is simple.
Yes, Rose has the stats, but what he did, was in direct violation of the rules of professional baseball.
Unlike being a drunk, or a racist (look at the **** that happened to Jackie Robinson), or a womanizer, Rose's actions went directly to the integrity of the results of games. There's a reason that betting on professional sports is against the rules, and a reason that betting on professional baseball games is a higher violation of those rules. And that reason is the integrity of the results of the games, to prevent anything like the erosion of public support for the game that started around the time that word of the Black Sox scandal leaked out to the public.
Canseco might be an ******* for driving over 100 mph in a school zone in Phoenix, and that might not qualify him as the proverbial starry-eyed role model
, but the basic difference with Canseco, Ruth, Cobb, or others is that what they did reflected on their character as individuals, not on the integrity of the sport.
Rose is in a category of his own in that respect. Pete Rose with a problem at the craps table is one thing - Pete Rose betting on the outcome of major league baseball games (and other related bets) where his actions as manager or player could influence the results of those games, is entirely different. Had Rose come clean early on with exactly what he'd bet on, and had he produced some form of records, that would be one thing - but he lied, and lied repeatedly, trying to cover his ass.
Now he's decided "I'm going to tell a partial truth, if you look the other way and don't get into the details, and if you give me what I want." If they kiss Rose's ass and let him into the Hall, I hope they mount a big spitoon under his plaque.
Yes, Rose has the stats, but what he did, was in direct violation of the rules of professional baseball.
Unlike being a drunk, or a racist (look at the **** that happened to Jackie Robinson), or a womanizer, Rose's actions went directly to the integrity of the results of games. There's a reason that betting on professional sports is against the rules, and a reason that betting on professional baseball games is a higher violation of those rules. And that reason is the integrity of the results of the games, to prevent anything like the erosion of public support for the game that started around the time that word of the Black Sox scandal leaked out to the public.
Canseco might be an ******* for driving over 100 mph in a school zone in Phoenix, and that might not qualify him as the proverbial starry-eyed role model
, but the basic difference with Canseco, Ruth, Cobb, or others is that what they did reflected on their character as individuals, not on the integrity of the sport.Rose is in a category of his own in that respect. Pete Rose with a problem at the craps table is one thing - Pete Rose betting on the outcome of major league baseball games (and other related bets) where his actions as manager or player could influence the results of those games, is entirely different. Had Rose come clean early on with exactly what he'd bet on, and had he produced some form of records, that would be one thing - but he lied, and lied repeatedly, trying to cover his ass.
Now he's decided "I'm going to tell a partial truth, if you look the other way and don't get into the details, and if you give me what I want." If they kiss Rose's ass and let him into the Hall, I hope they mount a big spitoon under his plaque.
And I see alot of stuff in there anyway. :-P
Comment