I'm a sports fan, and I'm an especially big baseball fan (and college basketball fan, but my team sucks so hard this season, I'm kind of in mourning). I feel like one of the biggest turnarounds I've ever felt myself make is regarding my thoughts on Pete Rose. Years ago, when he was first banned from baseball and in the subsequent years, I thought, "Why not let him in the Hall of Fame? His numbers and statistics are Hall of Fame worthy." Then, I grew up a bit, and understood more about what his gambling on baseball meant. I realized that he didn't just screw up, he screwed up and lied about it, tarnishing the integrity of the game, and was arrogant in doing so. Now, he admits that, yes, he gambled on baseball, and expects fans and those in baseball to forgive him, in a clearly manipulated move designed to sell more books, and he does so at a time that steals the spotlight from my first favorite baseball player ever, Paul Molitor. Bah. Peter Gammons, my favorite baseball writer, makes it all very clear.
Posted by waking slow at January 7, 2004 07:40 AMI completely agree with you. The guy's a jerk, his actions were reprehensible, and now that he's finally coming clean, he doesn't even act like he's sorry. People seem to think that just because he has numbers that are obviously Hall of Fame-worthy he should be reinstated, which is ridiculous because nobody would be arguing to reinstate some mediocre player who had done the same thing. So we should forgive just because of how many hits he had? I'll be very disappointed if Selig lets him back in.
Posted by: kds on January 7, 2004 01:31 PM