The New York Daily News reported on Tuesday that MLB commissioner Bud Selig was considering lifting the ban on Pete Rose, the sport's all-time hit leader. Doing this would make him eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame. ESPN is reporting that Rose's status remains the same, and that this report isn't true. Anyway, with Pete Rose's Hall of Fame chances are up for debate once again, I think we have a larger issue to discuss in baseball. With more, and more players from the "steroid era" on the ballot each year, and the thought of Rose gaining Hall of Fame eligibility, it is time to think about what is the more sinful act within baseball. Is it gambling on the sport of baseball, or using performance-enhancing drugs? We might find out within the next 5 years.
I say within the next 5 years, because in that timeframe we will have the ultimate showdown between performance-enhancing drugs and the Hall of Fame committee, which in essence is the governing body of legacy. Barry Bonds will be up for judgment. The parallels between Bonds and Rose are strikingly similar. One is the all-time home-run leader, while the other is the all-time hit leader. Both are locks for the Hall of Fame if it were solely based on on-field performance. However, both are the face of the infraction that they may, or may not have committed. Bonds has the steroid cloud, while Rose bet on baseball as a manager. I will be extremely interested to see who gets in the Hall of Fame first. I think the answer to the question of which is the bigger baseball infraction will be answered by who gets in first.
With this in mind, I would let Bonds in the Hall of Fame before Pete Rose, because I think PED use is a lesser sin than gambling. Both infractions do ruin the integrity of the game, and lessen the purity of the sport. However, while Bonds was cheating, he was making himself better, therefore the team better. What Pete Rose did was shameful, and was nothing more the disrespectful to the game of baseball. Rose thought he was bigger than the game by gambling on his team, whether he was betting for or against his team is irrelevant. That is why the worst scandals in sports are point shaving scandals. If fans believe that what they are watching is pre-determined, it can cause the downfall of the sport. People in position to determine the outcome of games cannot gamble on the results, period. For this reason, David Stern called the Tim Donaghy betting probe, "the worst situation that I have ever experienced."
Baseball is about to approach a sort of judgement day, where one after another Hall of Fame ballot will be debated and scrutinized, not for their on-field worthiness, but the methods they used to become Hall-of-Fame worthy. Meanwhile, the Pete Rose issue will not go away. Decisions will likely come down to declaring what is the lesser of the baseball evils. If it was up to you, who would you let in first, Bonds or Rose?
Posts
I would agree that Bonds should enter first, although I don't tolerate PED use at all. You raise a good point by mentioning that fixed games would lead to the downfall of the sport, because we've all watched games in which an umpire makes calls that seemingly favor one side or the other. These games are just frustrating and are not as exciting to watch. Sure, it adds to that realistic old-time approach to baseball by not reviewing calls (plus it helps the games not take 14 hours to complete), but the point is that games with a fixed outcome aren't enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteWith the PED users, it's obviously cheating. No doubt about it. Our bodies are meant to develop in a certain way, and taking supplements to increase muscle growth or anything just goes against this; it's wrong. But, there's still the "you've still gotta hit the ball" matter. If Barry Bonds was loaded up on steroids and faced a pitcher that he just could not hit, then there's no use. It becomes a concern when he does get a hit, because added strength equals added power.
Pete Rose gambled on a team's outcome, which is what it is: a gamble. However he deliberately increased the odds of one side winning, which is unfair. If there's unfair play, it's uninteresting to the public. (Again, we've all played games with siblings or friends where they cheat the whole time. It's not enjoyable, but you play anyway just to play.) With betting on baseball, you're fighting an uphill battle on a forever increasing hill.
Barry Bonds cheated to increase his strength to become the home run king. If that's his idea of becoming great, than it's pathetic, but his victory I guess. If I were in Bonds' position, I'm not sure I'd want to go down in history as the home run king, knowing I cheated my way to the title. Look where it got him: he's out of the sport, and has to deal with federal charges.
Aside from personal guilt, Bonds has a less destructive case to baseball. The PED issue has been addressed and fixed, and the sport is able to continue just as it has before. If MLB began fixing the outcomes of its games, the sport would be destroyed almost immediately.