A lot of people are excited about the fact that MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred is letting Pete Rose participate in ceremonies related to the All Star Game because it's being played this year in Cincinnati.
They think it's a precursor to Rose being reinstated into baseball, and that predictably brings about the familiar and idiotic claims that Rose has "served his time" and it's been "long enough" and all that sort of thing.
No.
Pete Rose was given a lifetime ban (technically a "permanent suspension") from baseball because he committed an offense that he absolutely knew carried that punishment. When Rose bet on baseball games while managing the Reds - particularly when he bet on games involving the Reds - he committed the cardinal sin of Major League Baseball. The rules were established, and the penalty of a lifetime ban proscribed, precisely because the people who run MLB understand that nothing sullies the integrity of the game more than players, coaches and managers gambling on the very games they are involved with. It is a serious punishment for a serious offense. And it's a correct punishment.
What's more, Rose did more than just bet on baseball. For years he dishonestly attacked the character of investigator John Dowd, all the while knowing that Dowd's investigation had been 100 percent accurate and that he had Rose dead to rights. When he finally admitted that his attacks against Dowd had been unjustified, it represented little more than a 20-years-too-late tip of the cap to some tiny element of remorse. But not much.
But even if Rose were to finally cop to everything and apologize to all the world for what he did, it would still not call for his reinstatement. There is no substantive case to be made for Rose to be let back into baseball. Only emotional ones. A lot of people think it's an injustice that Rose - baseball's all-time hit leader - is not in the Hall of Fame, and they would like to see that rectified while Rose is still alive so he can experience it.
But that is not an injustice at all. It is justice defined. It is part of the price Rose has to pay for what he did - knowing full well it was against the rules and knowing full well what the consequence would be. To let him back in now because of his stats as a player, or because of the way people feel about it, would be to render the rules and proscribed penalties of Major League Baseball meaningless. A person found to have compromised the integrity of the game should expect the punishment laid out in the rules only if people's emotions didn't get in the way.
For those who argue it's been "long enough" or whatever, I'd ask this question: What - aside from your feelings or your rooting interest as a fan - argues in your mind for a lifetime ban not really being a lifetime ban? When Commissioner Giamatti made his decision in 1989, he offered no process for reinstatement, nor did he set out any terms under which it might be possible. He simply and quite properly applied the punishment envisioned for the offense that Rose committed.
If Rose is let back into baseball now, then the rules will mean nothing and the punishments will mean nothing. That is way too high a price to pay to assuage your feelings as a fan. There is no such thing as having "served your time" when your time is life.
It's a high price to pay. But it was a high crime that Rose committed, and he's getting what he deserved. Any argument to the contrary is emotional nonsense.
