“Should Pete Rose Be in the Hall of Fame? No” Mark J. Hamilton

On August 24th 1989 Pete Rose was banned from baseball for gambling on the game. Rose signed a document accepting the ban but not admitting any guilt. He was allowed to apply for reinstatement after a year. Since then baseball fans have been divided in their support for Rose. I must begin by saying I love Pete Rose the ball player. Sure he was brash and cocky on the field. And most of us who are Cleveland Indians fans have never forgiven him for effectively curtailing the career of Ray Fosse by plowing him over in the All-Star game. But I was playing college baseball in S. W. Ohio in the 1970s when Pete Rose was the heart and soul of the Big Red Machine. The Reds were Rose’s team and the people adored him. He was a hometown boy who became the contemporary symbol of overachievement and of how the game ought to be played: to win with every ounce of effort. There is a strong argument, though, in support of the Major League Baseball’s position that Rose should be banned. He bet on professional baseball and on the Reds while he was their manager. Is there evidence of Rose’s violations? Baseball hired John Dowd, a former federal prosecutor, to conduct the investigation. Dowd calls the evidence against Rose “overwhelming.” He discovered evidence Rose had run bets through his friend, Paul Janszen, to a bookie named Ron Peters.1 Both of them testified against Rose as did Janszen’s girlfriend Danita Marcum. Another bookie, “Val,” took bets directly from Rose and through Steven Chevashore. Besides the testimony of these characters, there are phone records of calls from the Reds clubhouse to bookies, financial and bank records that show continued betting during the baseball season, and betting slips with Rose’s signature and prints on them. The evidence is compelling. The testimony of the witnesses was corroborated by handwriting experts and a wealth of phone records. Rose also admitted to illegal betting on basketball and football, and the gambling records provided by the witnesses indicated that the gambling payments to bookies continued through the baseball season, long after football and basketball had ended.2 Rule 21(d) is visible in every major league locker room: “BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.” This rule recognizes the need to keep the game fair through its conventions, so that any player or manager who gambles on the games violates an essential rule of the game. What is wrong with managers having enough confidence to bet on their own team? The wager could make him short-sighted. He may be so interested in winning today’s game to get out of the debt, he might not act on the best interests of the team he is managing. He might sacrifice winning the season for the sake of winning today for personal benefit. What if he has a large gambling debt and he is trying to make it all up in tonight’s game? For example, such a manager could sacrifice future chances at victory in order to win tonight by overextending his top relief pitcher. He could become more interested in personal advantage than in the long-term success of the team. Or if a manager gets in debt to bookies he could attempt to clear his account by providing inside information about his team. Rose is a tragic figure of contemporary sport. He continues to deny he bet on baseball despite all the evidence to the contrary. By admitting Rose back into baseball and thus into the

1 Derek Zumsted, “Evaluating the Dowd Report,” www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20021031/zumsteg.html. 2 Sean Lahman, “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Pete Rose,” http://www.baseball.com/data/rose- faq/html. Hall of Fame without making him admit his actions, showing great remorse, and renouncing his behavior, baseball would be saying that Pete Rose is above the rules of the game and above respecting the game. The game would lose integrity and Major League Baseball would be saying that their rules have no weight and authority; they do not really matter. Commissioner Giamatti may have stated in best on the day of Rose’s ban:

The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is a sad end of a sorry episode. One of the game’s greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which have stained the game, and he must now live with the consequences of those acts. By choosing not to come to a hearing before me and by choosing not to proffer any testimony or evidence contrary to the evidence and information contained in the report by the Special Council to the commissioner, Mr. Rose has accepted baseball’s ultimate sanction, lifetime ineligibility.34

3 http://www.dowdreport.com 4 Mark J. Hamilton, “Should Pete Rose Be in the Hall of Fame? No,” in Baseball and Philosophy: Thinking outside the Batter’s Box, ed. Eric Bronson (Chicago: Open Court, 2004), 292–94. Reprinted by permission of Open Court Publishing Company, a division of Carus Publishing Company, Chicago, IL, from Baseball and Philosophy: Thinking outside the Batter’s Box by Eric Bronson, copyright © 2004 by Open Court.