BeautifulBrunette wrote:The flawed argument of a double standard always arises during a debate about Pete Rose. You know, "Darryl Strawberry...Steve Howe… drug dealers…wife beaters...rapists… why can't Pete get a second chance when these guys have been given so many chances?"
This is bogus logic. Nothing in baseball's rulebook says a player caught snorting coke, smoking pot or beating up his wife will be banished for life. This isn't about the laws of society. Rose was banned because he violated a rule posted on every clubhouse wall in major league baseball: anyone betting on the game will be banned for life. It leaves no room for interpretation and there's no fine print at the bottom, listing possible exceptions.
Pete's pride/stubbornness/arrogance will not allow him to admit guilt or remorse or apologize for betting on baseball, including games played by the Reds, the team he was managing at the time (how some folks think that's no problem is beyond me). He has done nothing to demonstrate to the powers-that-be that he is attempting to overcome his gambling problem. That's up to him. But then, baseball can't be blamed for refusing to reinstate him. Pete "can't do nothing" and expect reinstatement.
By betting on games in which he had a hand in the outcome, Pete compromised the integrity and credibility of the game.
He broke THE rule and has done nothing at all to rectify his huge error. Leave his stuff(baseballs, bats) in the hall, but leave Pete where he belongs, out of baseball and the hall. He is still represented in the hall, so anyone who goes there will know about him. He does not need to be enshrined for people to know about his accomplishments and based on his actions and the rules, he does not deserve to be enshrined.
The whole sympathy-based arguement holds no water, since allowing him in would undermine the intergrity of the sport. Its their rule and their rule needs to be enforced.
As Lofunzo said and I fully agree: "The game will be spineless if they back down now."