By Frank Deford
Pete Rose appears at an autograph signing event last month in Las Vegas. Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred rejected Rose’s plea for reinstatement of the league, citing his continued gambling and evidence that he bet on games when he was playing for the Cincinnati Reds. Without reinstatement, Rose can’t be elected to the Hall of Fame. John Locher/AP hide caption
toggle caption John Locher/AP
We start 2016 with a command, that the subject of Pete Rose and the Hall of Fame is over, finis, kaput forever and ever. As sure as we will no longer discuss whether Lindsay Graham or George Pataki can be president. The new commissioner has been even more adamant in dismissing Rose’s pleadings, so it doesn’t matter how passionately you feel, it is a dead issue. There.
But OK, now that we have that settled, there’s bound to be more attention devoted to the candidacies of the accused steroid users. Should they get in the Hall of Fame? Especially among those who worship at the altar of statistics, there is the argument that, well, so many players were using that the cheaters just proved that they were better than the other cheaters. Of course, this still cheats all the players who didn’t cheat, but since nobody knows the accurate steroid census, the argument persists.
Click the audio to hear Frank Deford’s take on this issue.
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.