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.
3 comments:
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
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.
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.
Post a Comment