Baseball in Verse, Take 3
My first big national story happened in 1994, when I got an exclusive interview with Pete Rose five years after he was banished from baseball. it's funny to look back on it now and realize that not one word in it -- with the possible exception of the "Boca Raton" dateline -- is true. The strange part is that I can't help but like Pete Rose even though he spent some four hours lying to me on that day. Pete lying and hustling is part of the game. I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame too, though I don't expect him to ever get there.
I know
I'm a Hall of Famer.
I don't want to sound
arrogant.
I'm not
arrogant.
But I belong there.
I played the game
the way
it should be played.
Baseball obsessed me.
I don't regret it.
I had to be that way
to succeed.
I signed an agreement
which said I didn't
admit or deny that
I bet on baseball.
How does that mean
I bet on baseball?
There has been absolutely no evidence
that says
I bet on baseball.
They don't have anything.
And still they write that.
Now I see
they want me to admit
to betting on baseball.
They want me to lie
and admit to something
I didn't do.
I'm not going to do that.
I would never do that.
I like my life very much.
-- Pete Rose, August, 1994
2 comments:
I'm not a Pete Rose fan, and the latest controversies isn't really helping my opinion. Yet it's stupid that he's not in the Hall of Fame. While betting on baseball is an unforgiveable act and I don't think Pete Rose should ever be given a job in any baseball position, I feel that what he did off the field should have no bearing in whether or not he's eligible in the Hall of Fame. It's the same with Joe Jackson.
By the way...it was said that Joe Jackson was given a lifetime ban. I never understood exactly what it meant by lifetime. It certainly isn't Joe Jackson's lifetime, because he's been dead for over 50 years. Is it the lifetime of some random baby born in Chicago in spring of 1920?
I remember reading somewhere that there is one sign that is posted in every baseball clubhouse. It is a reminder about the prohibition on gambling, not on taking HGH or amphetamines or throwing spitballs. If that's the case, then Rose broke the cardinal rule of the game and he did so willfully. In that case, I have no problem with him being banished from the Hall of Fame. He disgraced the game in the most egregious way possible.
I also want to express my skepticism about his comment that he bet on the Reds every night and always to win. This has been cited by some as something that mitigates the fact that he bet on baseball and on his own team. Why should we believe this assertion on his part? Gambling addicts are hooked on winning, not on betting for betting's sake. Did Rose really believe that the Reds would win every night? On some nights, he had to have thought that they would either lose or be less likely to win. Whether this manifested itself through not betting on his teams some nights or betting less than normal, he was sending a signal either way that would give some people an edge in winning a bet (or permitting himself not to lose as much). But again, I ask, can we truly believe that he put his money on the line every night in a belief that the Reds would win? What manager out there believes in April that his team is going to go 162-0? I don't think there is anyone. Well, maybe Tony Pena.
Post a Comment