Bill Madden continuously goes to bat for Pete Rose to be in the Hall of Fame. It's his pet project and no matter what Pete Rose does, Madden will want Rose in the Hall of Fame. I'm starting to wonder if Pete Rose murdered someone if that would only strengthen Madden's insistence that Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He would say that Rose murdering someone with a baseball bat only showed his talent on the field, which is why he should be in the Hall of Fame. So Madden writes about Rose here, here, and here. Simply because a player is an asshole does not mean he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but if it did, then Rose would be doubly-banned from every being in the Hall of Fame. Rose initially denied betting on baseball, then accepted his lifetime ban on baseball while denying he ever bet on the sport, then decided because he had some books to sell that he should admit to betting on baseball and therefore did, but all the while insisting that he NEVER bet on the Reds. Not at all shockingly, this turned out to be a lie too. Perhaps Rose was waiting for his next book to reveal he bet on the Reds. Gotta turn that profit.
So not only is Rose a consistent liar, but he's also still a huge asshole. He's still being a dick about running over Ray Fosse in the All-Star Game. He doesn't have to apologize profusely, but he could be less standoffish and defiant about running over Fosse. I don't blame Rose entirely though. He's had enablers over the year like the rest of his Big Red Machine teammates and sportswriters like Bill Madden, who at this point is so entrenched in the "Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame" camp that there is no way he can change his mind now, no matter what Rose does. So he's unfazed by Rose being found out (again) for being liar.
The latest revelations about Pete Rose’s gambling past —
Pete Rose was probably pissed he couldn't make money selling a book containing the revelation he bet on baseball. No worries, I'm sure there are many other things that Rose has lied about which could sell copies of his next book.
which came about with the sudden and curious reappearance of the 1989
betting ledger kept by his former memorabilia agent, Mike Bertolini
When one of Bill Madden's buddies gets hit with 26 year old evidence it is "sudden and curious," but when a suspected PED user has someone he knew 5-10 years ago provide evidence that PED user did use PED's then it's just that person's moral duty to report what they know. What about this evidence is "sudden and curious"? It's old evidence, but does Bill Madden think there is some broad conspiracy to convince the world that Pete Rose bet on the Reds by providing actual evidence he bet on the Reds?
if nothing else have ensured that the game’s all-time hit king can never come off baseball’s permanent ineligible list.
I'm not sure that was happening either way.
That Rose, according to the page copies of the ledger obtained by ESPN,
bet on baseball as a player for the Cincinnati Reds, and not just as a
manager, merely adds one more layer of lies and denials on his part.
At this point, the layers of lies and denials are so deep there's really no recovering from it. The assumption at this point should be that whatever Pete Rose denies doing, this probably means he is lying and actually did do this thing.
But because the penalty for betting on baseball — permanent
ineligibility — has been clearly stated since 1920, it was hard to
imagine new commissioner Rob Manfred lifting Rose’s ban anyway when he meets with him in the next few weeks.
Plus, it does cut into Rose's book sales. His revenue from appearance fees and commercials probably won't take a hit though and that's probably more important to him than anything else.
All this does is further sully Rose’s image, just as a groundswell of
support for him to be reinstated after 26 years of banishment appeared
to be forming in the wake of all the steroid cheats coming onto the Hall
of Fame ballot.
"A groundswell of support" being defined as, "Rose's sportswriter friends are writing about how he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame in an effort to make it seem like this is something a much larger group of people want as well." Nothing like setting the agenda for a topic to be discussed based on your own personal opinion and then commenting that your opinion reflects that of the majority.
Maybe there is a groundswell of support or maybe the fact Rob Manfred is going to be meeting with Pete Rose soon reminds sportswriters that they want Pete Rose to be in the Hall of Fame, which means they write articles about this topic, which means Bill Madden thinks there is a larger groundswell of support than there may actually be.
Even after finally coming clean about his betting on baseball, Rose
continued to insist he never bet as a player — despite the assertions to
the contrary in the Dowd Report — and now even his most ardent
supporters are hard-pressed to have any sympathy for him.
Except for Bill Madden! He's still holding water for Pete Rose and this is a hill he is willing to die on.
All of this, however, changes nothing in regard to the long-standing
baseball conundrum: Does Rose belong — or should he at least be eligible
— for the Hall of Fame?
Again, I don't necessarily think Pete Rose should be eligible for the Hall of Fame because he was permanently banned from baseball. That's my reasoning. If Rose gets in, I'm not going to throw a fit, but I think his permanent banishment should preclude him from making the Hall of Fame. This, of course, is where obsessive Rose supporters like Bill Madden will start talking about PED's and attempting to show an equivalence that I'm not sure truly exists. Move the ball, change the subject, then maybe you can convince some people that using PED's equates to betting on baseball and betting on your own team while playing for and managing that team.
The reason this is a conundrum is because Rose is much like Barry Bonds,
Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez in many ways. Everything they have
said and done off the field — the lies, denials, lies on top of the
lies, etc. — renders them illegitimate.
And here we go...
The difference, in contrast to
the others, is that everything Rose did on the field was legitimate.
Absolutely, Pete Rose's performance on the field was totally legit. He didn't take PED's and only took greenies. Wait, Pete Rose took amphetamines that are currently banned by MLB? But don't worry, it was only for "reasons to lose weight." So it's totally fine and doesn't count at all as enhancing his perfomance on the field. This is much like PED users who may use these PED's but only "to come back from injury," which is totally not acceptable. There is a huge difference there. The biggest difference being Pete Rose played back in the 70's and sportswriters don't want to think about those guys as having used any substance to enhance their performance so they will just ignore any information about greenie use from Pete Rose.
Sportswriters like Bill Madden love to cloud the issue of Rose's lifetime ban by talking about the PED use of current players. It's the "How come I'm in jail for robbing a bank when this guy murdered someone and isn't currently in jail?" line of reasoning. Rather than face the fact Rose accepted a ban head-on and has continuously lied since that time, they would rather say, "HEY! These guys cheated and nothing is being done to them" as a way of ignoring the issue of Rose's acceptance of a lifetime ban.
No more respected sports voice than Bob Costas, when posed that question
by ESPN’s Hannah Storm last Monday, said affirmatively that the Hall of
Fame should still be a separate issue from Rose’s permanent
ineligibility and that, in his opinion, Rose should be in the Hall of
Mind you, Costas is someone many people in the past even promoted for commissioner.
Who cares? These unnamed "people" think a lot of things and that doesn't mean because a group of people think Bob Costas should be commissioner that Costas' opinion should be treated as if it has more importance than it otherwise would.
Interestingly, in an interview Costas had with Manfred a few weeks ago,
he specifically asked the new commissioner whether baseball, through its
own investigations, knows anything about Rose’s recent or current
behavior or associations that would change fans’ minds if they knew
about it. Manfred responded: “I can tell you, there is no recent
investigation or material involving Pete Rose.”
That is interesting, because Bill Madden would think that Manfred would reveal any evidence that MLB had heard which claimed Rose did bet on his own team. It makes sense for Manfred to reveal this in an interview with Bob Costas as opposed to having it revealed a few weeks later.
Honestly, I have no idea why this is interesting.
Perhaps this whole issue of Rose and gambling on baseball would be much
more clear-cut if baseball itself wasn’t in partnership with DraftKings,
the online daily fantasy sports website in which millions of dollars
are won and lost by fans essentially betting on the performance of
Uh-oh, we are talking about Pete Rose and his associations and current behavior. Better change the subject again!
Except there is a huge difference in baseball players betting on games they manage or play in and fans betting on the performance of athletes. For example, it's not against MLB rules for fans to bet on a player's performance, but it is against the rules for an active manager or player to bet on baseball or his own team. In fact, yep, that's pretty much the only difference required to explain why MLB has a partnership with DraftKings and Pete Rose is banned for life. The issue of Rose and gambling on baseball IS clear-cut. Fans can bet on players because they don't control the outcome of games, while players and managers can't bet on the outcome of games because they are able to control the outcome of said games. This seems like a very basic principle to me.
MLB maintains that fantasy baseball isn’t gambling per se as it falls
under the regulatory category of “games of skill” — and that it was
beneficial (not to mention highly profitable) for baseball to be
involved with an industry that promotes daily interest in the game among
Which is possibly true. I find that I am more in-tune with what is going on with each baseball team, as well as enjoy the sport more, because I play fantasy baseball.
It should be noted that neither the players themselves nor anyone
working in Major League Baseball is permitted to engage in DraftKings’
baseball fantasy operation.
Awwww, it's almost like Bill Madden understands the difference in players betting on DraftKings and fans betting on DraftKings, but he just doesn't want to acknowledge there is a fairly clear-cut difference and question what the hell this has to do with Pete Rose. By the way, Pete Rose accepted the lifetime ban and has continuously lied about betting on baseball, as well as betting on his own team while managing that team. I don't think lying necessarily keeps a person out of the Hall of Fame, but when Rose isn't eligible for the Hall of Fame because he bet on baseball and he keeps lying about the extent to which he bet on baseball, it doesn't exactly help me to feel sorry for his plight.
“In terms of growing the game among young people, baseball’s association
with DraftKings makes sense,” said one sports executive. “But at the
same, you’re talking about people betting on players every day and, in
that respect, baseball’s stance against gambling, if not hypocritical,
at the very least becomes blurred.”
I don't think I see this line being blurred. I think it's pretty clear. MLB likes betting when it helps draw new fans to the game and help old fans enjoy the game even more. MLB doesn't like betting when it becomes an issue of the integrity of the games being played to where the outcome of the game could be in question because a manager or player is trying to earn money on a bet they made. Maybe baseball is hypocritical, but this is a pretty clear line in my opinion. Gambling by fans is fun, gambling by those paid to play baseball could put the integrity of the sport into question.
Put Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot. Fine. Just know that trying to make it seems like Rose is getting a raw deal because MLB is affiliated with DraftKings or complaining players who have used PED's are still eligible for the Hall of Fame is avoiding the issue of why Rose can't be on the Hall of Fame ballot.