Yes or No?
January 6, 2004
By: Paul Sullivan
Paul Sullivan covers the Cubs
When Major League Baseball began investigating allegations
that Pete Rose was gambling on baseball, a bookie named
Ron Peters testified he'd stopped taking Rose's bets
three years earlier because the all-time hits king refused
to pay him $34,000 he was owed.
Not only was Rose a liar and a tax cheat, it appeared
that he also was the kind of lowlife who would stiff
But with a new book to sell and a deadline to get on
the Hall of Fame ballot, Rose finally has admitted he
lied all alongwhen he said he never broke baseball's
Now he's supposed to get his proverbial second chance,
be absolved of all his sins and earn reinstatement in
time for the Baseball Writers Association of America
to finally vote him into Cooperstown.
"You can't keep a guy from making a living," Rose told
the Associated Press in 1999. "It's not the American
Is it the American way to lie, lie and lie again until
a time comes when it's safe--and lucrative--to tell
the truth? Rose is baseball's version of former New
York Times reporter Jayson Blair. Rose is a complete
and utter fraud who decided to cash in on his web of
lies with a "tell-all" book admitting some guilt.
Though the numbers suggest he's a true Hall of Famer,
Rose's character is so despicable I can't envision myself
putting a check mark by his name if he winds up on the
ballot. And if Rose is reinstated, how can baseball
continue its ban of former White Sox third baseman Buck
Weaver, who never took a dime of gamblers' money during
the 1919 Black Sox scandal?
It's nice that Rose has stopped lying to the public
after all these years. But that doesn't mean he should
be rewarded for coming clean. If Rose really is repentant,
he should repay the gambling debts he refused to pay
Getting a second chance may be the American way, but
nothing is more un-American than walking away from a