The debate about forgiveness to Pete Rose has times without resolving. And now, after his death on September 30, 2024 and the comments of President Donald Trump, who in recent days indicated that he would give a “complete forgiveness” to the legendary player and criticized the MLB for not having exalted it to the Hall of Fame, the discussion has been revived.
Considered one of the most talented and charismatic players in history, Rose was expelled from the sport in 1989 after confirming that he bet on games, including those in which he played and directed. Since then, many have advocated their claim and inclusion in the Hall of Fame.
But, beyond the symbolic gesture, what could really forgive Pete Rose?
There are those who believe it would be an act of justice. Their numbers are undeniable: 4,256 hits, 17 selections to the star game and three world series titles. His passion and delivery were never in doubt. For many, his absence in Cooperstown is a stain in the history of sport and lifting his sanction would mean recognizing the greatness of his career.
But the issue includes more than statistics, a moral issue is included. Baseball has been inflexible with the issue of bets to protect the integrity of the game. Rose broke a fundamental rule, and although MLB has currently embraced the business of betting houses, his case remains a reminder of the risks that this entails.
If Rose is pardoned and exalted to the Hall of Fame, what message would be sent? What rules can be flexible depending on who violates them? What talent justifies any error?
Sorry for Bonds?
In addition, forgiving Rose could sit a precedent for other sanctioned players, from those wrapped in steroid scandals to those involved in more recent traps. For example, Barry Bonds for being the maximum home run in the history of sport would also have a case to be exalted, more when he never tested positive for official doping tests under the MLB program.
The dilemma with Pete Rose is not only about his legacy, but about the values that Major League Baseball wants to defend. More than a simple decision, it is a reflection of how firm or permissive sport can be with its own rules.
