Pete Rose and his exclusion from baseball and its Hall of Fame is old news – but it’s become new news since baseball appointed Rob Manfred as its new commissioner less than a month ago.

When asked the question he knew was coming, the new commish said he’d “be willing to deal with the issue at some point.”

That statement kindled Hot Stove chatter everywhere.

I was listening to WIP’s Joe Giglio on Saturday night and the Pete Rose controversy was one of his topics of conversation. So let me come clean right off the bat: For years, I’ve thought that excluding Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame was a miscarriage of justice. On August 24, 1989 – nearly 25 years ago – then-commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Rose for life for gambling on baseball.

Banned for life?

For crying out loud, Pete Rose was one of the greatest players to ever play the game. He played in the majors for 24 years, compiled a .303 career average, and he’s the lifetime leader in several categories:
– 3,562 games played
– 15,890 plate appearances
– 14,053 at-bats
– And the biggie – 4,256 hits

How can you keep baseball’s hit-leader out of the Hall?

Pete Rose served his penance. Let him in.

But after listening to Joe Giglo’s show – and paying attention to his callers – my opinion started to waver. Basically,  the callers fell into two categories – the Yays and the Nays. Now, while the Nays took the objective approach, the Yays took the subjective approach – much like myself.

I loved Pete Rose – hold on – I loved Pete Rose when he played for the Phillies. But I hated him when he played for the Reds. Don’t get me wrong. I always marveled at the way he played the game – but he was the enemy and he did everything within his power to beat my team. He often succeeded and I often wished he played for the Phillies – and then one day he did – and that’s when I loved him.

But that was the “subjective” me talking.

The objective callers stripped Pete’s accomplishments away from the discussion and focused on his transgressions. That made me ignore Pete-the-Ballplayer and focus on Pete-the-Gambler. To that end, I found an article written by Katherine LaGrave for wallstcheatsheet.com.

Its title was “6 Things to Know About Pete Rose Ban.” Item #2 reviewed the “Dowd Report.” I’d heard about the “Dowd Report” for years, but never took the time to research it. Since Katherine LaGrave had already taken the time to do it for me, I went with her summation:

Look at how much Pete Rose was betting and look at all the sports he was betting on. Look at how much he lost in one month and notice that he was in hock for $200-Gs to a bookie. This isn’t playing Fantasy Football for $25 a week, risking $10 in the weekly football pool, or betting $100 online with an off-shore betting parlor. Pete was betting mega-bucks – with leg-breakers – and he was losing. He was becoming indebted to powerful people.

Those types of powerful people sometimes make you do things you don’t want to do.

Sorry, Pete. That’s just plain wrong – and you knew it.

Major League Baseball banned Pete Rose for life nearly twenty-five years ago. That ban has yet to be lifted – nor should it be lifted.

I’ve come full circle. Ignoring how much I liked Pete-the-Ballplayer and looking at the situation objectively, Pete-the-Gambler doesn’t deserve dispensation from the new commissioner. I say Nay. He got what he deserves.

Barry Bowe is the author of 1964 – The Year the Phillies Blew the Pennant and Born to Be Wild.