Pete Rose Should Remain Banished, But Should Be Inducted

(Disclaimer: I grew up as a fan of the Cincinnati Reds and Pete Rose.)

It looks like Pete Rose is making a bid to end his lifetime banishment from baseball, by publishing a book in which he admits he did, after all, gamble on games his team, the Cincinnati Reds, played in. The conventional wisdom has been that he was doing this in a bid to be made eligible for the Hall of Fame, before his eligibility would expire in 2006. Something else I read, though, suggested he also wanted to be able to manage again.

Regarding the Hall, I've always thought he should be eligible, regardless of his gambling, or any other behavior (short of perhaps some extreme, purely hypothetical finding that he helped himself get so many hits by, say, bribing opposing pitchers). He is the all-time hits leader, and among the best to ever play the game, period. Unethical off-field behavior doesn't change that. Excluding him for gambling would be akin to deprecating a Mozart symphony because he had an affair.

However, I don't think that he has such a good case for otherwise ending his banishment, most particularly to the extent of being permitted to manage again. He has stonewalled for 20 years, trying to brazen it out. His defense was that "the punishment didn't fit the crime, so I lied about the crime". That self-serving defense doesn't wash. It would be different if he came clean years ago, not in apparent contemplation of a deadline that forced his hand, and then served a de facto probationary period.

He further claims that, if he had come into trouble because of alcoholism or drug-addiction, he would have had a six-month suspension, treatment, and all would have been forgiven. That is a false analogy, however. Presumably, a substance-abuse problem would not have directly called into question the integrity of his work. A different story for gambling on one's own games. I would offer a different analogy. Imagine an airline pilot was found to have been drinking within the alcohol-free window all pilots must observe. He might claim that he only had one or two drinks, and it was toward the early end of his window. After rehabilitation, it might be appropriate for the pilot to be allowed to work for the airline again, but I don't think it would be reasonable for him to be allowed to ever fly again (certainly not commercial flights) (not sure if that's how it actuallyl works).

As additional mitigating evidence, he pointed to the fact that he always bet the Reds to win. So, his gambling didn't influence his on-field decision-making: wagering or not, he was always playing to win all-out. I haven't followed the case closely enough to know whether betting to win is an undisputed fact, but taking it at face value, it is an important, but not quite watertight, consideration. It is conceivable that, if he had a big bet on a particular game, his desire to win that game might overwhelm his strategic judgement; for instance, he might push a star pitcher to continue pitching hurt, when sound medical judgement suggests removal from the game. I admit, it is a bit of a stretch, but not completely far-out.