Gregg Doyel Thinks Pete Rose Deserves a Second Chance Simply Because He Deserves One

I am one of those people (I guess there are others) who isn't against Pete Rose being reinstated by Major League Baseball. I've just never heard a good argument as to why MLB should reinstate him. Perhaps I am biased by the fact that I consider gambling on sports as a coach/player to be worse than taking PED's. I consider it to be a great offense to sports to either bet on (and especially against) your team. Using PED's is bad, and it does cheat the opposition, I understand that. Gambling is just...different to me. So Gregg Doyel thinks Rob Manfred should reinstate Pete Rose because he thinks Rose has done his time. I don't find his argument persuasive for reinstatement. I think Pete Rose should be allowed in the Hall of Fame, much in the same way I lean towards allowing PED users in the Hall of Fame. The baseball Hall of Fame is a separate entity from MLB and I think Pete Rose belongs in the Hall as one of the greatest baseball players of all-time.

Maybe I'm being harsh. Rose knew the ramifications of his decision and he gambled anyway. The punishment fits the crime. I recognize the same Big Red Machine teammates that are horrified at the thought of PED users being in the Hall of Fame want Rose reinstated, which makes chuckle. On a side note, I miss Joe Morgan. I miss covering his weekly ESPN chats (a tear falls) here. I'm fine with Rose in the Hall of Fame, but he admitted to gambling (once he had a chance to make a profit off his admission, which probably irritates me more than it does most rational human beings) and a lifetime ban is the punishment for this admission.

It's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose.

Absolutely forgive him. Don't lift the ban just because it's been a long time since he was banned. A lot of time having gone by since his ban doesn't mean Rose should be forgiven.

Simple as that, but this isn't a tweet and I have a lot more than 140 characters to work with, so I can keep going. Don't see why it's necessary, because the first sentence says it all.

Except it doesn't say it all, because it doesn't include the reason why Rose should be reinstated. Why Rose should be reinstated seems pretty important when making the statement that "it's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose." I can make a statement like, "Anyone convicted of marijuana possession at any point in their life should be given $10,000 in cash, tax free," but this statement doesn't explain WHY I believe this. It's kind of important to know why.

It's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true.

The only reason for the game to hang onto its grudge -- and make no mistake, this has moved beyond justice and into grudge territory -- is cruelty.

Incorrect. The only reason for the game to continue to enforce the punishment, it's not a grudge, is because Rose knew what he was doing is against the rules and did it anyway. They are enforcing a punishment, not hanging onto a grudge. A grudge would be if baseball had no reason to suspend Pete Rose for life and still wouldn't reinstate him, but MLB does have a reason for doing this.

Baseball doesn't like Pete Rose. Baseball wants Pete Rose to suffer.

I fail to see how "Baseball wants Pete Rose to suffer, so they enforce the rules regarding betting on baseball" is a persuasive argument. Why should baseball reinstate Rose? Doyel gives no other reason outside of accusing Bud Selig of disliking Rose and saying it's been 25 years since Rose was banned from baseball. I find neither argument persuasive.

Bud Selig doesn't like Pete Rose. Bud Selig wants Pete Rose to suffer. And so Bud Selig won't forgive Pete Rose.

I don't like Pete Rose. I think he's a rat fink who only looks out for himself and only will accept responsibility for his actions when there is a financial gain for him in doing so. I think Rose hangs around the periphery of baseball trying to gain sympathy as if he were in some way wronged, all while rolling in the money by exploiting his position as being banned from baseball. He's within his rights to do this, but it doesn't mean I have to like him. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame and I haven't heard a good reason he should be reinstated, but I don't hold this position because I don't like him. It's because most of the reasons I have read for reinstating Rose suck. The reasons given for Rose's reinstatement are usually similar to the reasons Doyel is giving here.

That's what was happening in recent years. Selig didn't like the way Rose hijacked the Hall of Fame induction ceremony every year in Cooperstown by setting up an autograph table not far away. He didn't like the way Rose turned his admission of guilt -- "I'm sorry I bet on baseball" -- into the phrase he signed on the baseballs he was selling at Cooperstown. Pete Rose confused contrition with capitalism, and it looked horrible, and as the person overseeing the integrity of baseball Bud Selig didn't like it. Hell, I didn't like it either. Who would?

So of course Gregg Doyel is making the assumption that because Bud Selig allegedly doesn't like Pete Rose for very valid reasons, Selig is refusing to reinstate Rose not because of a lifetime ban from 25 years ago for admitting to violating one of the most important rules of sport, but because Selig just doesn't like Rose. Doyel is about to do a comparison to the justice system, but this is like saying a parole board won't grant a prisoner parole based on the fact they don't like him, not based on the fact he was in jail for murder. The very reason that prisoner is in jail is enough of a reason for denying bail.

I'm not accusing what Rose did as being the same thing as murder, simply explaining the violation of baseball rules on gambling is enough reason to not reinstate Pete Rose. There's no consistent effort by Selig to keep Rose out of the game, which would potentially be the act of a person holding a grudge, because there doesn't have to be a consistent effort. The lifetime ban is enough to keep Rose from being reinstated.

But he's leaving, and in January when baseball has a new commissioner, it will be Rob Manfred's call.

I almost want MLB to reinstate Rose. That way the baseball Hall of Fame has to be the bad guys. I would love for Hall of Fame members to come out in support of Pete Rose being eligible for the Hall of Fame because he has been reinstated. That way I could show the hypocrisy of these Hall of Fame members allowing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, but not PED users. It would be a gold mine of posts for me.

On the surface that would suggest Manfred and Selig see eye-to-eye on most issues.

And they probably do. But on all issues? Is it logical to assume Rob Manfred, a labor lawyer out of the Ivy League, is in intellectual lockstep with Bud Selig -- a car-lot owner from the University of Wisconsin -- on every single issue? Of course not. That's not logical.

BREAKING NEWS FROM GREGG DOYEL: Two individual human beings will never agree on every single issue presented to them.

That's delusional. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was Paul Tagliabue's right-hand man; does anyone think Goodell is another Tagliabue? Same goes for David Stern when he replaced Larry O'Brien as NBA commissioner.

Gregg, I don't know if anyone but you indicated that Manfred and Selig might see eye-to-eye on every issue. Logical people wouldn't think this to be true.

He became a partner in a global law firm based in Philadelphia, where his work in labor law attracted the attention of baseball. He became the owners' outside lawyer, then joined Selig's staff in 1998.

Nearly a decade after Rose was banned from the game.

I like how Doyel is grasping on desperately to this idea of time. Time is why Rose should be reinstated. Time is why Manfred doesn't have the perspective that Selig had. It's as if Manfred will be like, "I didn't personally ban Pete Rose, so I will ignore the rules that state gambling on baseball will earn that person a lifetime ban."

Gregg Doyel is hiding some facts here when discussing Manfred. Rob Manfred went to work for MLB in 1987, before Rose was banned. He was part of the owners' team during collective bargaining during the 1994-1995 season. He joined full-time as part of the owners' team in 1998. 16 years after beginning to work for the owners full-time is Manfred really still an outsider? If Selig isn't an outsider and he was the owner of an MLB team, doesn't that mean the guy who has worked for MLB prior to Pete Rose being banned is not an outsider either? He's been on the owners' side from the time Selig owned the Brewers and been with Selig for the past 16 years.

My point? Selig had something Manfred does not: a personal history with Rose. In 1989 when commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Rose, Selig owned the Milwaukee Brewers. He was part of the machine. In 1992 when Rose applied for reinstatement to Giamatti's replacement, Fay Vincent didn't act on it; Selig was still part of the machine. And in 1999 when Rose applied for reinstatement to Vincent's replacement, Bud Selig ignored it too.

I like how it is Bud Selig that has the grudge, even though he wasn't the commissioner who banned Pete Rose and isn't the commissioner that initially ignored his attempt at reinstatement.

Selig was there from the beginning with Rose, is my point. He was entrenched. Rose wants reinstatement? Selig shrugs.

I'm not saying Manfred wouldn't consider it, but Rob Manfred is entrenched too. He's been a part of the owners' team since the 1994-1995 season and has worked with MLB since 1987. He has been there through Rose's banishment and every single one of his appeals. He's not quite the outsider that Gregg Doyel wants to paint him as being.

Manfred will probably be his own man, just like Adam Silver is his own man as the NBA commissioner, but he's pretty entrenched with the owners and MLB. As far as Bud Selig being entrenched and holding a grudge against Rose, I don't think Rose has given Selig a reason to reinstate him.

Some day soon Rose will ask Manfred to consider the same. Just a matter of time, because time is running out on Pete Rose. He's 73 years old, 

The fact Pete Rose is getting older is not a reason to reinstate him. It was a lifetime ban, not a ban until the very point Pete Rose is young enough to remember he got reinstated but old enough to where he can't participate in any baseball events due to his health.

how much time do any of us have, much less any of us in our 70s who have lived with the stress and disappointment that Rose has dealt with for the past 25 years?

Gregg Doyel leaves out the fact that Pete Rose has caused the stress and disappointment that he has had to deal with over the past 25 years. Such small details I know, but Rose brought this all on himself. Not to mention, he's making money off his name and who he is, and he doesn't seem to be struggling or headed for a retirement home in the next few months. I would feel bad for the "stress" Rose has caused for himself, but all of his wounds are self-inflicted.

Enough's enough, know what I mean?

I know what that means, but I don't know what you mean in this situation. A lifetime ban is a lifetime ban, you know what I mean?

Baseball wouldn't be sending a message of weakness to anyone considering betting on the game, the cardinal sin Rose broke -- and it is a huge sin, and he did break it. I minimize neither of those.

Doyel isn't minimizing it, but time and suffering...what about time and suffering. Plus, grudges!

Betting on baseball is horrible, something all players are reminded of with a sign in every clubhouse spelling out the punishment: a lifetime ban.

And there we go. It's in every clubhouse and the players know the penalty. Allow Pete Rose to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, but I don't see a reason to reinstate him. I'm open to it if a good enough case can be made, but Rose knew the rules and his only commitments to being apologetic are when he make a profit off doing so. There's no grudge involved, but that Rose wants to make money off his lifetime ban certainly isn't helping his case. Rose comes off as an opportunist more than he comes off as remorseful. Rose has cried publicly about being banned from baseball, so maybe he is contrite. Maybe it's an act for those who want to believe him.

If anything, it would get this topic back into the forefront of conversation around the game, and the conversation would start like this:

They banned the all-time hit king for 25 years. Embarrassed him. Humiliated him. If they can do that to Pete Rose, what would they do to me?

That conversation has started and goes like this: "They banned the all-time hit king for life. Imagine what they would do to me."

I think it's hilarious that Gregg Doyel thinks giving Rose a 25 year ban, instead of a lifetime ban, would serve as a greater deterrent to future players who want to gamble on baseball. The fact MLB eventually let Rose back in would start a conversation about that as well. Maybe if a player just admits to gambling on baseball immediately and is contrite, he won't get a 25 year banishment.

Twenty-five years isn't life, but a life sentence doesn't always have to be a life sentence. It's not in our court system, where a life system often leads to parole. How come? Because our court system feels like there are times when the prisoner has done his time, and whatever he did to earn that lifetime sentence, he's paid his price.

This isn't a court system. Pete Rose had paid his price. He's still paying his price. It doesn't have to be a life sentence, but what reasoning has Pete Rose given MLB to reinstate him? Other than hanging around baseball and trying to remind everyone how much he loves and the game and oh by the way do you want an autographed baseball for $100? Rose will write he bet on baseball on the ball for $50 more dollars.

Where's the forgiveness for Pete Rose? Where's his second chance?

Sometimes there is no forgiveness. Sometimes there is no second chance. This is something that gets lost in society today. There may not be a second chance given. I think a lot of people run on the assumption if they screw up, they will get forgiveness or a second chance, and that doesn't always happen. Sometimes there is only one chance to not screw up and sometimes once you screw up there is no second chance to save face and get back to where you were prior to screwing up.

Oh, right. It's in the hands of Rob Manfred. And I like it there. Because Rob Manfred is no Bud Selig.

He may not be Bud Selig. We will all find out. Manfred isn't the outsider that Gregg Doyel seems to think he is. Plus, if Rose is reinstated it will start a whole new set of columns where the old guard of sportswriters will defend gambling on baseball as so much better than using PED's in an effort to get Rose in the Hall of Fame, but still keep PED users out. Those are some articles I would like to cover here.