Baseball And Ethics, Part #1: "The Reinstatement of Pete Rose"

If by reading my blog articles you haven’t figured this out yet, I want to tell you that baseball has been a big part of most of my life. As a fan, a player, an assistant baseball coach, and the father of a baseball player, I have spent a huge amount of time involved with and thinking about baseball. As a Christian and now a pastor, I also think about everything in life in terms of morality and ethics. Well, what I want to talk with you about in this article is “Baseball And Ethics.” Professional baseball right now is facing huge and complex moral dilemmas regarding ethics, and the resolution to these will have far reaching effects, including even the potential to bring down the entire Major League and its legacy. This is the first part of a series I am going to do on baseball and ethics. By the way, I could go lots of different directions with these articles because there is much to consider regarding baseball and ethics, and much at stake in this discussion. But, I will start with this first segment by discussing the Pete Rose dilemma.

Issue #1: Should Pete Rose be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame? Should his ban from baseball be lifetime, and if the ban is lifted should he ever be allowed to coach, administrate, and be let into the Hall of Fame?

Many have voiced their opinions on this issue over the past twenty years, many doing so recently, and one of the things that seems to be influencing people in favor of reinstating Rose is the fact that apart from his breaking the gambling rules that his efforts and accomplishments on the field certainly merit him being in the Hall of Fame. Many have recently stated that they want to see Pete Rose allowed into the Hall of Fame, including recently one great spokesmen and icon of baseball, Hank Aaron.

Now, no one is arguing about whether what Pete Rose did was wrong. There are rules that have always existed for professional baseball against gambling.

Major League baseball’s first rule states: “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 no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one (1) year.”

It’s second rule states: “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."

By the way, the reason that Major League Baseball implemented gambling rules in the first place was because since the beginning of the leagues there has been corruption by baseball players betting and then throwing games in order to win money by losing. So, it is not difficult to imagine why stiff gambling rules were needed. Pete Rose is believed to have bet on his team as many as 50 times during the 1987 baseball season, and when this was discovered he was declared permanently ineligible. The baseball commissioner said that the evidence against Rose was overwhelming. Rose twice applied for reinstatement and was denied in 1997 and 2003.

There are two issues I’d like to discuss related to Pete’s ban. First of all, how do you determine what is a fair punishment for crimes and the breaking of rules? There are a plethora of ways in which justice could be served in such cases, and thus I don’t know how someone could say that one particular punishment is the "correct" one. Governing bodies determine laws and rules, however, and we as citizens and members defer to them to make these determinations. Those who were in charge of the baseball league at the time that the gambling rules were implemented had to make a decision about what was just and appropriate, and, the two gambling rules were what they determined to implement. We always abide by their decisions.

The second issue related to Pete’s ban has to do with precedence. In the history of the game, there have been many who have been banned for life for breaking the gambling rules, and to this point in time none have ever been reinstated. The most famous case is what is known as the “Black Sox Scandal.” It occurred when eight players on the 1919 White Sox (later nicknamed the "1919 Black Sox") threw the World Series at the behest of gamblers and received the lifetime ban from baseball. These eight men included the great "Shoeless" Joe Jackson; pitchers Eddie Cicotte and Claude "Lefty" Williams; infielders Buck Weaver, Arnold "Chick" Gandil, Fred McMullin, and Charles "Swede" Risberg; and outfielder Oscar "Happy" Felsch. Oh, and here is a list just of those who were banned from baseball prior to 1920:

• Thomas Devyr, Ed Duffy and William Wansley, New York Mutuals, banned in 1865
for associating with known gamblers. Devyr was reinstated the same year; the
others were reinstated in 1870.
• George Bechtel, Louisville Grays, was banned in 1876 for conspiring with his teammates to throw (intentionally lose) a game for $500.
• Jim Devlin, George Hall, Al Nichols and Bill Craver, Louisville Grays, were banned in 1877 for conspiring to throw two games. No evidence was ever found to suggest that Craver actually had anything to do with the conspiracy, but he refused to cooperate with the investigators.
• Oscar Walker, banned in 1877 for "contract jumping" by signing a contract to play for
another team while still under contract to the team he left. (This was approximately 100 years prior to the advent of free agency in sports.)
• Richard Higham, umpire, banned in 1882 for conspiring to help throw a Detroit
Wolverines game after Detroit's owner hired a private investigator to check out
Higham's background, who found that he was a cohort of a known gambler. To date,
Higham is the only umpire banned for life.
• Joseph Creamer, New York Giants (team physician), was banned in 1908 for bribing an umpire $2,500 to conspire against the Chicago Cubs during a playoff game against the Giants.
• Jack O'Connor and Harry Howell, manager and coach, respectively, of the St. Louis
Browns, were banned in 1910 for attempting to fix the outcome of the 1910 American League batting title for Cleveland Indians player Nap Lajoie and against Ty Cobb.
• Horace Fogel, Philadelphia Phillies owner, was banned in 1912 for publicly asserting that the umpires favored the New York Giants and were making unfair calls against his team.

You can go to a web site and see the list of the names of every person who has been banned from baseball throughout its history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_figures_who_have_been_banned_for_life.

Now, I contend that if we let Pete Rose out of his lifetime ban from baseball, to be fair, that we must also remove the ban from every other person that was likewise banned for life. Pete Rose is no less guilty than anyone on the list, and in fact an argument could be made that because he bet over 50 times on his own team in 1987 that he is perhaps one of the worst offenders. The fact that Rose’s stats are more than deserving for him to be in the Baseball Hall of Fame should not even be part of our reasoning for reinstating him. If we let Rose in then we have a whole bunch of people, many with great stats themselves, whom we have let down in a very unfair manner. If we let Pete Rose back in to baseball then the declaration should also be made that the gambling rules were wrong and unfairly harsh, and that the lifetime ban was a poorly thought out concept. But, if we can’t reinstate all of the ones previously banned for life, then baseball ought to tell Pete Rose that they are sorry but rules are rules, and he was perfectly aware of the rules and their consequences when he chose to bet on his team.

I do know that laws and rules have to be based upon “fairness”, and lifting the ban for everyone is what the ethic of fairness requires, does it not? To say that we will let in Pete Rose because we just happen to like him or think he was a great player, when everyone else who broke the same rules was banned for life, is a precedent that we should not pass along to the next generation either. Since when are the statutes of morality supposed to be bent based upon respecting persons. The scripture tells us that God is not partial to any, not a respecter of persons, and that He judges all by the same absolute standards: Romans 2:11, “For there is no partiality with God.” This is stated very clearly also in Job 34:19, “Who shows no partiality to princes Nor regards the rich above the poor, For they all are the work of His hands?”

Likewise, the scripture tells us that it is a sin for we as God’s people to show partiality to others: Deuteronomy 1:17, “‘You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’” James 2:9, “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”

By the way, do you, and does your church, treat everyone the same, regardless of their race, nationality, station in life, financial status, political and group affiliations? It should. In James chapter 2, the verse above was penned to correct a situation in the church in which the more wealthy members were being given special treatment in the services and ushered in to sit in the better seats, while the poor people were being told to sit somewhere in the back. James' words were meant to be a stinging rebuke. We as God's people are supposed to treat all people equally, and this goes even for those in our own household, and marriage.

I remember the first time I learned this lesson in my marriage. My wife and I had been married about ten years, and one day I came home from work and my wife was looking at a furniture catalogue. I walked over to her and she said we’re buying that one, that one, that one, and that one. I said, “Wait a minute, you’re being selfish wanting to buy all of these things that you want for our house.” She replied, “Well, I have not bought a thing for myself and for all of these years I’ve watched you buy guitar and guitar amp, after another.” I replied, “Yeah, but that was for ‘ministry’ honey?” She replied, “Yes, and our house is part of my ministry, and that is why we ARE going to buy these!” I couldn’t deny her logic. She has often over the years also made this statement, “What is good for the goose is good for the gander!” Oh yes, fairness and not showing partiality, they are central in any system of justice for any civilized people.

I fear for the next generation because of the way we in our world today are so quick to make morality and ethics relative to persons and not based upon one absolute standard.

Now, there are some other arguments that have been made for allowing Pete Rose to be instated. For instance, the argument has been made that Pete Rose only bet for his team, not against them. Therefore, he should be reinstated because his actions weren’t as egregious as if he bet for his team to lose and then threw games, and, the rules against gambling were initially instituted after some had thrown games after betting their team would lose. The problem with this logic is first of all that the rule against gambling doesn’t specify only certain kinds of bets placed on your team. Secondly, if Rose were reinstated based upon the fact that it was determined that he only bet for his team rather than against them, this I believe would set up a precedent that is not good. It would encourage others to bet on their team, and this is probably not what we would want, plus it could cause some real problems and corruption with the game. By the way, I’m not sure it can be proven that Rose only bet for his team.

Another argument some have made for allowing Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame is the fact that it was after Rose had committed his gambling on baseball that Major League Baseball created the rule specifically disallowing anyone into the Hall of Fame based upon gambling on one’s own team. Therefore, Rose should be allowed to be grandfathered into consideration for the Hall of Fame since his offenses occurred before this rule and it would be unfair to hold him to this rule that came afterwards. If followed, this logic could allow Rose to be accepted into the Hall of Fame yet never be reinstated to baseball in general. No one else though has ever been allowed into the Hall of Fame who had previously been banned for life for gambling on his team, and this is because there was an informal agreement that a ban for life for gambling on one’s team included a ban from the Hall of Fame. The rule to disallow into the Hall of Fame for gambling on one’s team was simply implementing as a rule what had always been followed.

Finally, yet another argument for reinstating Pete Rose has to do with comparing baseball to other professional sports, and then determining that since some sports wouldn’t have given Rose a lifetime ban for betting on the sport, therefore, baseball shouldn’t ban him for life. The problem with this approach is that every sport has rules that are unique to it, and fairness in the application of rules has to be consistent within that sport, in order for there to be fairness to those who participate. While in an ideal world it would be good if every sport had the same rules regarding things such as gambling, it probably won’t ever happen, and, hoping that this will occur one day should not influence the decision regarding Rose’s reinstatement.

Again, I reiterate my position that if we are to be fair ethically and Pete Rose is to be allowed to be reinstated into baseball then every other player who has ever been banned for life for gambling on his team should also be reinstated.

In my next thread for this article about Baseball And Ethics, I will discuss whether those who have been discovered to have been taking steroids the past twenty years should be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame.