Pete Rose now, with his Playboy model wife (he calls his marriage “Tits and Hits”), and as the player called “Charlie Hustle,” when the fact that he was a low-life didn’t seem to matter.
Baseball season is fast approaching, and with it the usual welter of fascinating ethical issues that sport always generates. Here is an early one, arising out of one of the first signs of Spring Training, the release of the Topps’ baseball cards.
Pete Rose, as every educated American should know, was a wonderful player on the baseball field and a certifiable low-life off of it. Though he is the all-time leader in career hits, the former Cincinnati Reds icon has been banned from baseball for two decades, the result of defying baseball’s “third rail” by gambling on the game after his playing career, when he was a manager. (Rose also lied about his conduct, helped send a Commissioner of Baseball to an early grave, and has served time for tax evasion…and even without all this, he would still be an insufferable slime-ball. Trivia note: Pete was in the very first group of “Ethics Dunces” in 2004, along with Bindi Irwin‘s dad, and Fox. See? Nothing changes!) Never mind, though: Rose’s records have never been regarded as anything but legitimate, unlike those of baseball’s other living major miscreant, lifetime home run champ, steroid cheat and ethics corrupter Barry Bonds.
Yet as Aaron Gleeman reports on NBC sports, Topps is now, based on the evidence of its 2013 line of baseball cards, going out of the way to purge Rose’s name from all honor and memory:
“This year’s Topps baseball cards include “career chase” notes on the back that list how far players are away from various statistical records. For instance, on the back of Mets reliever Bobby Parnell‘s card it says: “With 249 games pitched, Parnell is 1,003 away from Jesse Orosco’s all-time record of 1,252.” However, Rob Harris of ChicagoSideSports.com noticed that all of the “career chase” notes mentioning hit totals do so without actually using Pete Rose’s name. So, for example, A.J. Pierzynski‘s card says: “With 1,645 hits, Pierzynski is 2,611 away from the all-time record of 4,256.” That “all-time record of 4,256″ belongs to Rose, of course, but apparently Topps has taken it upon themselves to whitewash him from history. Or something. When contacted by Harris company spokesperson Clay Luraschi said only that it was “a simple decision” and made “plain and simple.”
Gleeman speculates on why Topps is doing this (Rose’s nauseating reality show is one of his guesses), but it doesn’t matter: there is no justification for it, and Topps is breaching its duty to its customers, the game that supports it, and, yes, Rose himself by not giving Pete his due. Topps, though in a minor and arguably frivolous medium, records the history of baseball, and Rose’s on-field exploits are a large and glorious part of that history. It is wrong for the company to airbrush him from the game, no matter how embarrassing his conduct became once his playing days were over.
____________________________________
Facts: NBC News
Ethics Alarms 
If Topps feels Rose is such a cancer to the sport that his name cannot be printed on their cards, should we then assume they will be giving any and all money made off his name and cards to a worthy charity? Surely the money must make them feel dirty.
Or perhaps someone at Topps is a huge Harry Potter fan and they also want a character that is so evil he is referred to as “he who must not be named”.
And, of course, Pete isn’t evil. He’s just like most people, unfortunately, sort of bungling through life without giving much serious thought to right and wrong, or the consequences of his actions to others. He’s just human at the basic, primitive level—what does he want, what can he do to get it, and what can he get away with.
“Bungling” is a perfect adjective for Pete . . . not always the brightest light in the room but I do think “sociopath” (per Elizabeth I below) is a bit harsh. Like most stupid criminals he probably thought he could get away with it and rationalized that since he was betting for, not against his own team the rule was really more bent then broken. I’m a Cincinnati girl, born and bred so I tend to have a soft spot for Pete even though it is an ethical battle within my heart. We all know “2. The “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse” is not a sturdy argument but I do hate that the likes of Barry Bonds will forever be in print and Pete, with all his natural talent and true love for game and fans will always be the black mark on baseball. This never ending debate makes me appreciate my most favorite player of all time – Barry Larkin. Never a whisper of cheating, natural leader that always remembered where he came from while quietly doing many charitable things in our city. Unsung heroes are easy to overlook, I’m glad Major League Baseball did not.
nb
fox news was not on the original list of ethic dunces, it was the fox network.
Thanks.
Perhaps poor Pete Rose was just born too soon. I sadly think he would fit right in with today’s sports culture.
Baseball stats aside: Pete Rose is and was a sociopath, a moron, and disrespectful of his profession and our culture.. “Tits and Hits?” If Michael R thinks he was born in the wrong baseball era (poor baby) probably Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and all the other slimebags were, too.
All things considered, these poor idiots likely took their cues from our national leadership…
It is wrong for Topps’ to do this and it is wrong to keep him out of the hall. It’s also wrong to keep Bonds and Mcguire out of the hall as well.
What he did on the field is about the game all of these other considerations are about the person. Do we keep paintings of famous artists who were dirtbags out of the galleries? Do we not mention presidents who cheated on their wives and acted unethically for most of their lives? Nope.
Absurd.
Of course it is right to keep him out of the Hall. Rose knew the consequences of betting on baseball, knew that the danger posed by public belief that games were being manipulated by gamblers was legitimately regarded as a threat to the game’s integrity. It is absurd to argue otherwise, that a willful violator of a law with known penalty shouldn’t be required to pay teh prescribed penalty. Rose was a student of the game. He know what happened to Shoeless Joe, and why.
Bonds and McGwire cheated. Cheaters don’t belong in any Hall of Fame, especially one that has a character requirement, as baseball’s does. I’ve explained this issue ad nauseum–if you want to broach it, you had better have something better than the traditional ratioanalizations, and MUCH better than the ludicrous analogies “Do we keep paintings of famous artists who were dirtbags out of the galleries? Do we not mention presidents who cheated on their wives and acted unethically for most of their lives? Nope.” Ugh. Horrible. Painting are not placed in museums as honors, they are placed there to continue enjoying, just as concerts play music rather than honor the composers. Art is not a team sport, nor does one artist’s misdeeds affect other artists of the public’s appreciation of art. The President’s analogy is worse: congratulations! That’s hard to do! We “mention” President’s in history books, a just as Rose and Bonds are unavoidable in any baseball history. Nixon, Clinton, Pierce, Wilson, Carter, Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, however, are not on Mount Rushmore, and shouldn’t be.
The Hall is character based? You can’t actually believe that. Do you really want me to mention all of the suspect characters in the hall? It would take FOREVER! Players playing drunk, beating their wives, and treating fans like crap do these examples resonate with you? The list is quite long, Jack. I can start with Mantle and end with
Further, how many players in the hall were racists. To me nothing exemplifies bad character better than being a racist. So please, save me the crap about baseball caring about character.
The fact is Rose’s behavior did not affect his playing on the field. If the hall celebrates the best players to play the game he deserves to be there. If it celebrates the games nicest and most ethical then no. Most would agree that the hall is for the former and not the latter.
As regards Bonds and Mcguire, well, define cheating for me. To me cheating is to gain an ‘unfair’ advantage. If they were the only players doing it then it would have been unfair. If your concern is about the inflated numbers because of the substances being used, well, I could say the same about the way athletes train today and the equipment available to them. It’s unfair that they get nutritional information that allows them to last longer on the field, much longer than year’s past. How is that fair to “the numbers”. Or, is cheating a simple appeal to rules. If so then HGH was fine and your ok with the numbers because it wasn’t banned at the time? That seems wrong. It seems to stem in some unfair advantage.
With regards to presidents, again your thinking seems suspect. Jefferson had tons of slaves (and affairs) yet deserves to be on Mt. Rushmore. You’re sounding quite inconsistent.
With regards to Art. We have the art up in part to enjoyment and in part to celebrate the artist. Galleries would take the worse painting made by some artists, in large part because having a piece by that artist would sell tickets. The analogy works and a simple “nope” does not suffice for rebuttal, at least not in legitimate ethical discussion.
1. I’d be happy to discuss this with you when you’ve taken the time to read what I’ve already written on the subject, including my essay in the Hardball Times Annual. Mantle is no example. On the field, he was exemplary. The fact that he was an alcoholic has nothing to do with character—it is an AMA recognized illness. Other supposed miscreants in the Hall, especially Ty Cobb, have been victims of smear campaigns specifically designed to minimize the disqualifications of players like Rose and Bonds. The character clause is there, it matters, and it should matter.
2. “The fact is Rose’s behavior did not affect his playing on the field. If the hall celebrates the best players to play the game he deserves to be there. If it celebrates the games nicest and most ethical then no. Most would agree that the hall is for the former and not the latter.” the fact is that you are ignoring the facts and history. Rose is banned as punishment for endangering baseball’s integrity and reputation, and it was a punishment he knew he was risking. Nobody has ever claimed that it has anything to do with his conduct in the filed. Murderers can’t be buries in Arlington National cemetery, even if they were war heroes.
3. If I have to define cheating, then you are not qualified to have this discussion. Cheating includes breaking the rules and/or laws and hiding conduct that would be stopped or punished if revealed. Bonds and McGwire obviously qualify.
4. Re Jefferson: Jefferson is honored as a President, for his conduct as President. He cannot and should not be condemned for a practice that was both legal and accepted as ethical while he was alive. He cannot be judged based on 20th century sensibilities. The know on Jefferson was that he was a hypocrite. Hypocrisy will not keep you out of teh Hall of Fame, either.
5. You are not capable of a rational ethical discussion, because you don’t comprehend analogies. There is no valid analogy between a Hall of Fame, which honors a man, including his character, and a gallery, which honors a work of art. You seem to think the Hall of Fame honors statistics. It doesn’t.
And no legitimate gallery hangs what its curators believe are bad painting without legitimate artistic value, unless it is there for historical context.
Read my many pieces on baseball and steroids (Don’t forget the Ethics Scoreboard if you want to continue. I’m not going to repeat myself, especially with nothing but the hackneyed arguments you just made.
I didn’t realize I needed to be versed in anything and everything you have ever written on the topic for me to comment on the things you have said in your current post.Such a requirement is absurd.
“I’m not capable of rational ethical discussion” “hackneyed arguments” “if I have to explain cheating than I am not qualified to have this discussion” Do you often smear those that attempt to engage with you on your blog? Classless move.
I asked for clarification on what you mean by cheating as it means different things to different people. Cheating is a much more nuanced concept for me than merely breaking rules/laws. Cheating has to do with fairness regardless of what rules have been laid down.
It seems absurd to think that taking steroids 20 years ago before they were banned was completely ok and the second it was deemed “wrong” then it suddenly became unfair.
You mentioned that Clinton shouldn’t be on Rushmore. I simply pointed to Jefferson’s character as a foil as I assumed you mentioned Clinton because of some shady things he did relating to his character. Jefferson did more than have slaves (which was wrong then as well as now regardless of your relativist inclinations). He cheated on his wife and was not good to his family in many ways.
Lastly, quite likely your most out of touch claim that “You seem to think the Hall of Fame honors statistics. It doesn’t.”
It absolutely does! It’s not about the player. If the player didn’t produce those stats would they be in? It’s about what the player produced (STATS) on the field. And Mantle was drunk ON THE FIELD. That surely affects the integrity of the game, does it not?
And with regards to Art, well, I’m from Boston and I know a curator that has selected art he thought was that had less artistic value in favor of art produced by someone who was more well-known (as being one of the best). The hall is a historical place enshrining the best in the history of the game much like an art museum. The analogy is far from absurd. I find your attack to be unethical. Look back. Never did I attack you. Your tone is unwarranted.
1) There are some actions that are either so heinous or so toxic that our society or a society (e.g. MLB) deems them worthy of the ultimate punishment. For MLB, gambling on your own sport is such a thing — it endangers the very existence of the sport. Hence Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox were banned for life. Hence Pete Rose has been banned for life — and should be. His actions were of signature significance, as Jack terms it.
2) Something no one ever seems to talk about is what would have happened had Rose had his ban lifted, and thus became eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot. In my mind, there is absolutely no reason to believe that he would have been voted in.
Look at the votes Bonds and Clemens got this year. Going solely by their careers and stats, absent other considerations they would have been obvious first ballot HOFers, yet they only got about a third of the votes cast. I cannot believe that the same writers who valued character in respect to PEDs would not have done the same in respect to gambling on baseball. Very likely even more so, since we’re probably talking about a somewhat earlier generation of baseball writers.
I am not urging that Rose be reinstated — he shouldn’t — but even if he were, given the values and character of the voters he is by no means a lock. Pragmatically, perhaps he is better off with the current situation.
You are quite right about Rose—he would never get in by writers’ votes, but the reception from the Halls’ members would be much more accepting of Pete than if Bonds got in. Players admire Rose as a player—the older HOF members would revolt, I think, if the steroid crew started getting in, and we will hear of threatened resignations if that ever becomes a real possibility.
The corrosive effect of all this is that players like Bagwell, Biggio, and Jeter whom everyone believes were clean are still tainted to some extent by the era they played in. It is just beginning, too. We have yet to see what will happen with players such as Pettitte or Alex Rodriguez (I suspect A Rod has less of a shot than Bonds, though). It’ll be a long time before we can truly say the steroid era is behind us. *sigh*
I think you are right, Diego. I doubt he would get voted in. He would get my vote if I had one.
Would you agree that stats matter for the hall though? I mean, we don’t get to even discuss a players consideration for the hall unless he has amazing stats, right?
Again, ducking the issue. Nobody disputes that the player’s record is paramount in determining eligibility. So is character, by the Hall’s charter—it is a self-defining institution. In Rose’s case, violating the game’s gambling rules obviously matter, because the game has stated and decreed that it matters, and this has been unchanged since 1920.
Not sure what issue is being ducked.
You inferred that the player’s record wasn’t that important when you said “You seem to think the Hall of Fame honors statistics. It doesn’t.” I’d like to say that it does honor stats and then secondarily the player himself. For we don’t even have a discussion of the player if not for his stats.
I understand that the halls charter determined that character affects eligibility, and as a self-defining institution they are entitled to making such decisions. However, my claim is that using it for Rose and not for other players that have negatively affected the integrity of the game seems inconsistent. Mantle was drunk on the field. How does that bode for the game’s integrity?
If your claim is that Mantle had a problem, well, last I checked gambling was eerily similar. The only difference is the subject. Mantle couldn’t stop drinking and Rose gambling. They are/were both inflicted with a disease that affects their ability to make decisions that have affects on the game they played.
I guess there are two levels of argumentation. The first is the question of character in the first place; should it be a criteria. I say no as baseball is a game and the hall, as I see it, is a place that enshrines the best to ever play that game.
For the second question we can assume character is a criteria. Then if it is and we say that if we don’t let Rose in then we shouldn’t have let players like Mantle in either. Being drunk on the filed in front of fans during a game is just as bad (IF NOT WORSE) than a ex-player (once his playing days are over) betting on baseball.
How about players in the hall that slept around on their wives? That seems to speak to one’s negative character as well, and I’m certain that a number of players ‘enshrined’ have engaged in such behavior and in many cases much worse.
None of this speaks to your initial point, which I completely agree with. Topps was wrong to do what they did. Rose’s hit record is a part of history regardless of what anyone thinks about gambling on baseball, it didn’t help Rose to get a single hit. I’m just extending this sentiment to the hall of fame as well since they are either being inconsistent with regards to their character claims or saying that gambling is worse than cheating on your wife (among other problems and lifestyle choices that the hall turns a blind-eye to). Either way I think the Hall should address this seemingly inconsistent use of character in their judgments. I think the writers that do the voting should also speak to this inconsistency.
Not sure what issue is being ducked here Jack.
Justin, to say, as I did, that the Hall honors human beings rather than statistics is not to say that impressive statistics are not important, crucial, or essential. It is, rather, to say that they may not be enough, if the other requirements are not met at least to a minimal degree.
That is Rose’s problem.
The Hall’s criteria reads,
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.” You can disagree with the criteria, you can argue that it hasn’t been consistently enforced (which is not an argument for not consistently enforcing it), but you can’t argue that it isn’t the standards the Hall dictates. Out of six criteria, stats constitute one. “Integrity, sportsmanship, character” constitute three, and they are three areas where Rose’s deficits are significant. Moreover, Rule 21 of Major League baseball, posted in every MLB clubhouse including the one Pete Rose visited daily while he was betting on baseball, reads:
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. …Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
The Hall of Fame’s leadership voted that players who are “permanently ineligible” (that is banned from baseball for life) are ineligible for enshrinement.
In harping on Rose’s stats, you are ducking the real issue, which is failure to qualify for enshrinement or even consideration according to published and long-standing standards set by MLB and the Hall.
Thanks for the response, the details of the code, and for clarification, Jack.
I suppose my point boils down to this; for those who are calling for Rose to be out of the hall I just see it as inconsistent if you’re in keeping others with bad characters in. Seems arbitrary for reasons I have already mentioned in this thread. If the above criteria is the reason he is not in then that criteria has not been met by numerous players currently enshrined. This doesn’t mean Rose deserves to be in, that argument comes by critically analyzing the criteria and arguing against it. I’ve hinted at points worth pressing, however they are beyond the scope of your article so I will not delve into that discussion again.
Thanks again for the thoughtful response.
I apologize for my earlier crankiness.
Judging character retroactively and of long dead figures is tricky—witness how we are learning that almost all of the stories about Ty Cobb’s supposed racism and sadism were manufactured by one lying journalist with an ax to grind and an eye on profits. There’s no reason a Hall of Fame, or any honor needs to be limited by past errors from doing a better job.