Written by I realize that seeing the title of this article may cause some confusion. To clarify up front, no, Pete Rose has nothing to do with the Houston Astros, and they have nothing to do with him. However, they both have some similarities when it comes to the sport of baseball.
In late August of 1989, former Cincinnati Reds all-around player and manager, Pete Rose accepted a lifetime ban from the sport of baseball. This ban was due to allegations that Rose was involved in illegal gambling on baseball games while he was serving as a player and manager for the Reds. Rose initially denied any involvement in betting on games to then-Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, but subsequently admitted in 2004 that he had wagered on Reds games in his book, “My Prison Without Bars.” Giamatti levied an indefinite ban against Rose for his gambling which has prevented Major League Baseball’s all-time leader in hits, games played, at-bats, and singles, among other records, from having nothing to do with the sport of baseball or even be considered for entry into baseball’s Hall of Fame. Not only has Rose been banned from entry into the Hall during his lifetime, but he is also listed on baseball’s “Ineligible List” which prevents him from even being considered for induction into the Hall of Fame after his death. This list, unofficially known as the “Pete Rose List,” also includes such players as “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and the rest of the 1919 Chicago White Sox who were accused of taking money to throw that year’s World Series.
Rose petitioned Major League Baseball’s 2015 commissioner, Bud Selig for his ban to be lifted, and again to current commissioner Rob Manfred last year. In his current petition, Rose argues that Manfred used punishments that are much less harsh than permanent ineligibility on rules violations considered to affect the integrity of the game. Lawyers for Rose point out that none of the players for the 2017 Houston Astros team were punished for their participation in the systematic use of electronic methods to steal signs on the team’s way to winning the 2017 World Series. While Manfred did suspend Astros manager AJ Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow for one year and levied a fine against the team for $5 million, no other players were punished by Major League Baseball. Of note, both Hinch and Luhnow were then fired by the Astros, however, Hinch is the current manager of the Detroit Tigers.
In his petition, Rose and his lawyers state, “It has never been suggested, let alone established, that any of Mr. Rose’s actions influenced the outcome of any game or the performance of any player. Yet for the thirty-first year and counting, he continues to suffer a punishment vastly disproportionate to those who have done just that. Given how Major League Baseball has treated and continues to treat other egregious assaults on the integrity of the game, Mr. Rose’s ongoing punishment is no longer justifiable as a proportional response to his transgressions.” Rose’s lawyers have also said, “It’s in the best interests of baseball to not have as its legacy that Pete Rose is being treated grossly differently than every other player in its history, with the exception of ‘Shoeless’ Joe Jackson and the Chicago Black Sox.”
Throughout the years, the sport of baseball has adjusted with the times, such as when the US Supreme Court granted all 50 states the right to legally accept sports wagers. This allowed Major League Baseball, like all other professional sports, to profit in many ways from the legalization of sports gambling, the very thing that produced Rose’s lifetime ban.
In a country of second chances, and a sport that seems to be rife with them, why then are we not able to consider whether or not Pete Rose is legitimately remorseful for the actions that resulted in his ban and deserves to have his ban lifted? What does it say about the culture of an overall organization like Major League Baseball when the commissioners are unwilling to overturn the decision by one of their predecessors? Should leaders not look at what has happened in the past and be able to determine for themselves whether or not they can, or are willing, to make a reversal of a decision based on present-day facts and circumstances? It seems to me that Major League Baseball is treading the line of, “This is the way it’s always been done” when it comes to its stance on Pete Rose, and the 1919 Chicago White Sox. Any leader or organization that readily accepts that line as the way of doing things will soon see their organization falling behind the competition. Just because that’s the way “it’s always been done,” does not make it right. Being willing to change the way things have been done in the past is how you can change the culture of your organization and continue to make forward progress.
Reference:
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28639320/pete-rose-uses-astros-saga-ask-reinstatement