With the news of the Hall of Fame Class of 2014 awaiting announcement, there have been scads of article written about players who have or may not have used PED and how to cast a ballot give n this information (or lack thereof). Batten down the hatches, because this issue is going to be with use for years.
Similarly, when it comes to “balancing” sins, there are commentary pieces about the status of Peter Edward Rose, who was put on the “permanently ineligible” list by Commissioner Bart Giamatti in 1989.
The latest of these comes from Kostya Kennedy, author of 56: Joe DiMaggio and the Last Magic Number in Sports (2011).
Kostya’s op-ed piece — “Give Rose a Shot at the Hall” — was published in The New York Times on Sunday. In short, it boils down to this:
This is not to debate whether [Rose] actually deserves to be in the Hall of Fame — his marvelous, outsize contributions as a player say yes, his persistent, game-endangering gambling says no. But this is to argue that Mr. Rose, just like modern steroid users, deserves his day of judgment. It’s not too late. Just as the Hall abruptly concocted a rule to keep him out in 1991, it could pass an amendment that would make him eligible immediately. Mr. Rose might not be voted in, but we would know where he stands.
Thing is, Kennedy will be publishing Pete Rose: An American Dilemma in March. Looks like an interesting philosophical exercise. I would imagine the Times‘ piece will garner curiosity (i.e., sales) for his new project. I may be wrong, but does this connote a conflict of interest? At the very least, it seems like free advertising. Or is that the point: that Kennedy is the latest “expert” on the Rose situation and is therefore in a key position to opine on it.