Manfred Removes Pete Rose from Ineligible List Posthumously
In a decision that has sent ripples through the baseball world, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred has removed Pete Rose from the permanently ineligible list, a move that comes seven months after the all-time hits leader passed away at the age of 83. This marks the end of a 36-year ban stemming from Rose’s gambling activities during his time as both a player and manager for the Cincinnati Reds.
The initial agreement that led to Rose’s ban was forged with then-Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti. While Rose never explicitly admitted to betting on baseball in the agreement itself, he later confessed to wagering on the Reds in his 2004 biography. This admission, however, did little to sway MLB’s stance on his ineligibility, until now.
The decision arrives after years of debate and public pressure, including vocal support from former President Donald Trump, who advocated for Rose’s reinstatement and eligibility for the Hall of Fame. Manfred’s rationale hinges on the argument that Rose’s death eliminates any further threat to the integrity of the game, effectively rendering the ban’s original purpose obsolete.
The commissioner addressed the matter in a letter to Rose’s attorney, Jeffrey M. Lenkov, which MLB subsequently released. In the letter, Manfred delves into the interpretation of "permanently ineligible" within the context of Rule 21, the MLB’s prohibition on gambling. He argues that the primary objectives of Rule 21 are twofold: protecting the game from individuals who pose a risk to its integrity and creating a deterrent effect to prevent future violations.
Manfred asserts that with Rose’s passing, both of these objectives have been fulfilled. He states that a deceased individual cannot pose a threat to the sport’s integrity, and that a lifetime ban, ultimately enforced, serves as a powerful deterrent against gambling. Therefore, he concludes that permanent ineligibility should cease upon the death of the individual.
The decision stems from a meeting between Lenkov and Manfred in January, where the latest attempt to restore Rose’s standing in the game was presented. Trump’s endorsement on social media in late February amplified the momentum behind the reinstatement effort.
Manfred’s letter to Lenkov provides a more detailed explanation of his reasoning. He acknowledges receiving Lenkov’s request on behalf of the Rose family and notes that he had previously denied a similar request from Rose in 2015. The commissioner emphasizes that Rose’s death is the key factor that has changed since his prior decision.
Manfred explains that MLB had never formally addressed the issue of an individual remaining on the permanently ineligible list after their death. He points out that Rose is the first person banned by a commissioner other than Kenesaw Mountain Landis to die while still on the list. This unprecedented situation prompted the Office of the Commissioner to establish a policy decision on the matter.
The letter clarifies that the term "lifetime ban" is not entirely accurate, as the agreement between Rose and the Office of the Commissioner specifically refers to the "permanently ineligible" list as outlined in Rule 21. Manfred reiterates the standard he used in Rose’s previous request for reinstatement, stating that he must determine the risk that Rose would violate MLB rules, particularly Rule 21, if reinstated. He highlights the intended deterrent effect of the penalty and the best interests of baseball.
Manfred asserts that penalties imposed under Rule 21 are intended to safeguard the game from individuals who threaten its integrity and to deter future violations. He reiterates his belief that these purposes have been served upon an individual’s death. He also argues that a penalty lasting a lifetime without reprieve serves as an unparalleled deterrent.
Manfred acknowledges his preference to avoid overturning decisions made by previous commissioners, but he emphasizes that Rose’s placement on the ineligible list resulted from a settlement, not direct commissioner action. He believes his decision aligns with Commissioner Giamatti’s expectations regarding the agreement.
He references Giamatti’s comments during the press conference announcing the settlement, where Giamatti deferred to the Baseball Writers of America regarding Rose’s potential election to the Hall of Fame. Giamatti emphasized that the Hall of Fame decision was the responsibility of the writers, not the commissioner.
Manfred notes that Giamatti’s comments were reasonable at the time because the Hall of Fame did not have a rule barring individuals on the permanently ineligible list from consideration. He cites the example of Shoeless Joe Jackson, who was considered for the Hall of Fame in 1936 and 1946.
In closing, Manfred reiterates that it is not his role to express any view on Rose’s consideration or potential election to the Hall of Fame, aligning himself with Giamatti’s stance that the responsibility lies with the Hall of Fame.
The decision to remove Rose from the permanently ineligible list has reignited the debate surrounding his legacy and whether he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. While Manfred’s decision clears one hurdle, the ultimate decision rests with the Hall of Fame and its voters.
