Monday, May 04, 2009

Bonds vs. Rose

Should someone who commits a baseball-related criminal offense be allowed in the Hall of Fame? If so, then shouldn't baseball rethink Pete Rose, a player who, in his own right, earned his major baseball achievements honestly, whatever else he might have done to besmirch the game.

Can anyone think of a good reason to suppose that Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame, while Rose should remain out?

One answer, from a student of mine, said that Bonds should be in because he did not break a rule in place at the time.


Gordon Knight said...

I would think Rose has a better case than Bonds. Bond's behavior gave him an advantage in the game. Rose's gambling presumably had no such effect

Andrew T. said...

There's a really simple reason: Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from the game of baseball (including the Hall of Fame) in exchange for Giamatti dropping baseball's investigation against him.

Mike Darus said...

The constituion prohibits ex post facto laws. From a strictly legal standpoint, your student was correct. However "fame" has a meaning above and beyond statistical accomplishments. When a player becomes infamous, he loses the status fo fame.