In a peculiar twist of fate, Pete Rose, famed baseball star and gambling aficionado, admitted to a decade of sequential lies about his propensity for deleterious betting binges and actually lost the adoration of the baseball hierarchy. Anyone who knew Rose's saga -- his famed career as an unmatched hitter, his passion for the baseball, his on-field temperament and ultimately the gambling addiction that ruined it all -- held firmly to the belief that the reclamation of his life as a baseball hero (in this case his election to the Hall of Fame and perhaps his reentry into the managerial fraternity) depended upon his coming clean, admitting his shortcomings as a person and acknowledging the damage he did to the sport's integrity.
So it surprised me to read that after Rose, in his book "My Prison without Bars," acknowledged his transgressions and recognized his own indulgences, public opinion has swung against the man commonly referred to as "Charlie Hustle." Furthermore, it surprised me to see just how influential a role public opinion has played in the Pete Rose debate.
The latest installment of the Rose dispute is much like those that have occurred every year for the past decade. For starters (and this is a feature that has existed since Bart Giamatti excommunicated Rose from the game in 1989) there is the need to judge ethics. In this case, it's to evaluate the influence gambling has on baseball, specifically when conducted by a baseball insider. Secondly (and this too has been a feature of the Rose saga since 1989) there is a need to demarcate "on the field" versus "off the field" merit. For 15 years these two features have produced the question: "If Rose acknowledges his ethical shortcomings and the effect these shortcomings had on the game of baseball, do his baseball credentials afford him reinstatement to the game?" More often then not, as demonstrated by the most contrived TV event in recent memory -- a mock trial during which Alan Dershowitz and Johnny Cochrane argued the merits of the Pete Rose debate, courtroom style -- the answer would be, "Yes, Pete Rose deserves reinstatement."
Now, however, there is a third feature to the Rose saga that may overshadow fifteen years of deliberation: the influence of public opinion. Recent articles and polls have indicated a noticeable decline in support for Rose's reinstatement to baseball, not because people now perceive Rose's gambling habits as more injurious than they once were, but rather because Rose has not been as contrite as people would like him to be. In a recent article that appeared on ESPN.com, the guru himself, the transcendent and ubiquitous Peter Gammons, lividly bashed Pete Rose the person, at one point claiming: "he wants to be in the Hall for one reason -- to make money to feed his addictions." In an article that appeared on the same website only a day later, ESPN baseball columnist Jayson Stark wrote: "For nearly 15 years, baseball has allowed Rose to position himself as a sympathetic martyr in the eyes of a huge segment of the public. Now, all of a sudden, he isn't looking so sympathetic."(Note: these are quotations from two of ESPN's most senior columnists; there are harsher assessments, one from Rose's former teammate Joe Morgan, from which one could extract similar bashings.)
The pining of Gammons, Stark and Morgan exemplify how the crux of the Pete Rose debate has shifted from an assessment of his qualifications to an appraisal of the sincerity of his apologies. Consequently, the question is no longer, "Do his accomplishments merit reinstatement?" but rather, "Is he genuinely apologetic for his transgressions?" This, as it took me several paragraphs to get to, is dangerous for Major League Baseball. The Hall of Fame is not, and has never been, a gesture to a player's popular standing, but rather a barometer of a player's athletic accomplishment. It's unfathomable that writers (and others who get to vote on Hall of Fame inductees) now feel inclined to vote against Rose's reinstatement because they're personally unsatisfied with Rose's admission of guilt. It's like saying Jack Nicholas doesn't deserve an Oscar because he's never seriously tried to stop womanizing.
No one, except maybe Rose's bookie, would argue that Rose's gambling addiction---and even the moral demagogue William Bennett will tell you it's an addiction---has had no effect on the game. The debate over the Pete Rose scandal is, and should continue to be, about whether the effect was negligible, in which case reinstatement is obligatory; moderate, in which case a vote is necessary; or harmful, in which case the ban should remain. The court of public opinion has no place in this never-ending, agonizing, useless debate.