Comments on: Seeing McGwire through Rose-colored glasses

By: Amos Doby

Amos Doby — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:12:22 +0000

Well-written. Thanks. As someone who has struggled with an addiction myself, I really appreciate this blog.

By: Graham Womack

Graham Womack — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:13:48 +0000

Yeah, that’s my understanding about Rose too. I think the no-no was that he bet on games he was involved in, even if he bet to win.

By: Devon & His 1982 Topps blog

Devon & His 1982 Topps blog — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:44:04 +0000

Awesome article… I’d never thought about it from this point of view. They really should’ve told him “go to rehab and we’ll consider your application to come back into baseball”.

When did Rose ever cheat/throw a game though? I always understood that he gambled & played to win.

By: Graham Womack

Graham Womack — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:22:55 +0000

Hi rbj, thanks for reading, I appreciate your input. I agree with you in the sense that under the stated rules at the time, what Rose did was much, much worse than McGwire’s transgressions.
But let’s look at that.
The gambling rule came about, in part, because gambling was endemic in the game between 1900 and 1920. Many players were barred from the game for associating with gamblers, including: Hal Chase, Heinie Zimmerman, Benny Kauff, Jimmy O’Connell and the Black Sox. That doesn’t count all the players who were suspected, but never barred, like Rube Waddell, who was rumored to have missed the 1905 World Series because he was told by gamblers it would be worth his while. Don’t forget that Cobb and Speaker had a betting scandal that was suppressed in 1926 by American League president Ban Johnson.
By that same token, steroid use was probably endemic in baseball from the late 1980s to 2004, after the game finally instituted a steroid policy. It took a federal judge, Kennesaw Mountain Landis to step into baseball in 1922 as commissioner and rid gambling from the game. Had he served in this era, there may have been a similar, draconian policy regarding steroids.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:16:20 +0000

rbj, you are right there is a difference. At the same time I don’t think the difference is a lifetime ban vs. nothing for a steroid user who wants to coach.

By: rbj

rbj — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:18:39 +0000

The difference between Rose & McGwire is that MLB has a rule that if you bet on a game in which you have a duty to perform, even as a manager, you are then subject to be put on the permanently ineligible list. Steroid use even today does not have that same punishment.

Now, we can argue what should be the appropriate punishment for gambling vs. steroids, but under the rules at the time Rose committed the ultimate sin. McGwire didn’t.

As for KKK membership, as vile as we see it these days it wasn’t seen as vile back in the day (there are rumors even a president, IIRC, Woodrow Wilson, a known racist, was a member).

Betting on your games has been a big, big, big no no for a long time, with signs posted in every clubhouse. Steroids, or racism or spitballs do not have the same level of oppubrium.