Monday, May 25, 2009

Should Pete Rose Be in the Hall of Fame??

Rule 3E regards eligibility for the MLB Hall of Fame and prohibits Pete Rose from being inducted into the hall. But should Rose's situation be set aside and should he be allowed in? Here is some great analysis from Sports Law Blog on why Pete Rose should not be allowed into the hall.



Rose should not be in the Hall, because different rules apply. Rose is ineligible for the Hall under Rule 3E, which bars selection of anyone who is on MLB's permanently ineligible list. Rose is on that list because he agreed to be placed on the list (which he did to avoid the now-we-know-was-inevitable finding that he did, in fact, bet on games involving the Reds). There is no character/integrity/sportsmanship debate to be had with Rose--he is out because the rules (properly, I believe) keep him out.




But note the anomalies. "Rose retired as a player in 1986 and would have been on the ballot for the first time (and almost certainly elected) in 1992. Suppose his gambling had not been revealed until 1995? I cannot find whether there is a procedure for removing someone from the Hall if that person is suspended from the game subsequent to his induction. So we could ask whether it makes sense to deny admission to a player based on a suspension for post-playing conduct when we would not remove him from the Hall for the same conduct. Actually, this happened in miniature in the early 1980s, when Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were barred from any official involvement with MLB because they held PR positions with casinos (although Commissioner Bowie Kuhn had meant the suspension only to apply to formal employment and not to all involvement in the game). The Hall did nothing and the "suspension" was lifted after two years. Worse, under my counter-factual, Rose might not have been removed from the Hall (if no such procedure exists) even if had been discovered, post-induction, that he had gambled as a player."













































                                      • "Rose should not be in the Hall, because different rules apply.
                                        Rose is
                                        ineligible for the Hall under Rule 3E, which bars selection of
                                        anyone who is
                                        on
                                        MLB's permanently ineligible list. Rose is on that
                                        list
                                        because he
                                        agreed
                                        to be
                                        placed on the list (which he
                                        did to
                                        avoid
                                        the
                                        now-we-know-was-inevitable finding
                                        that he
                                        did,
                                        in fact,
                                        bet on
                                        games
                                        involving the Reds). There is no
                                        character/integrity/sportsmanship
                                        debate to
                                        be had with Rose--he is
                                        out because
                                        the rules (properly, I
                                        believe) keep him
                                        out."
                                        \










                                      • Howard Wasserman also brings up some good points
                                        later
                                        in the article in
                                        opposition of the 3E ruling above that would
                                        make
                                        Rose eligible and for the hall early on and then later, when his
                                        gambling habits were unveiled,




                                      • "Rose retired as a player in 1986 and would have been on the
                                        ballot for the
                                        first time (and almost certainly elected) in 1992.
                                        Suppose
                                        his gambling had
                                        not
                                        been revealed until 1995? I cannot
                                        find
                                        whether
                                        there is a procedure for
                                        removing someone from the
                                        Hall
                                        if that
                                        person is
                                        suspended from the game
                                        subsequent to
                                        his
                                        induction. So we
                                        could ask whether
                                        it makes sense to deny
                                        admission
                                        to a player based on
                                        a suspension for
                                        post-playing
                                        conduct when we
                                        would not remove him from
                                        the Hall for the same
                                        conduct. Actually,
                                        this
                                        happened
                                        in miniature
                                        in the early
                                        1980s, when
                                        Willie Mays
                                        and Mickey Mantle
                                        were barred
                                        from
                                        any
                                        official involvement
                                        with MLB
                                        because they held PR
                                        positions
                                        with
                                        casinos (although
                                        Commissioner
                                        Bowie Kuhn had
                                        meant
                                        the
                                        suspension only to apply
                                        to formal
                                        employment and
                                        not
                                        to all
                                        involvement in
                                        the game). The Hall did
                                        nothing
                                        and the
                                        "suspension"
                                        was lifted after two
                                        years. Worse,
                                        under my
                                        counter-factual, Rose might
                                        not have been removed
                                        from
                                        the
                                        Hall
                                        (if no
                                        such
                                        procedure exists)
                                        even if had been
                                        discovered,
                                        post-induction, that
                                        he had
                                        gambled as
                                        a
                                        player."


No comments: