Why is it that Mark McGwire gets to plead guilty to using steroids during his professional career playing MLB yet Major League Baseball continues to ignore Pete Rose? Didn’t McGwire seem to be a bit rehearsed when he cried in front Bob Costas during his public admission? Given his emotional state he was certainly able to remember who to apologize to and what remarks needed to be made. In the past, all McGwire could say about steroids was that he “wasn’t going to talk about the past.” That’s the statement he made famous in front of the U.S. Senate subcommittee.
Brand “McGwire” needed to come clean so he could take a job with the St. Louis Cardinals as the club’s new hitting coach. It is a high profile job and one that will cause McGwire to be active in the court of public opinion. Did McGwire also think his admission and crocodile tears would eventually land him in the MLB Hall of Fame in Cooperstown? The question remains, “Does someone who used performance enhancing drugs during his career deserve to be in the hall of fame”? If so, then will those players who used ‘roids have an asterisk next to their name? Will the ’90s need to be labeled the era of MLB Performance Enhancement? Is that fair to all the great players who never touched steroids or other performance enhancers? And what about Pete Rose? What did he do that continues to keep him from the halls of Cooperstown?
Rose admitted long ago that he bet on MLB. He said he bet on himself. He was contrite, while at the same time making it clear those wagers did not alter his performance in any game. One could argue that the bets had a psychological affect on Rose and therefore did in some way affect his performance. Nevertheless, arguably Rose is one of the greatest players to have played the game … certainly one of the greatest hitters of all time. Did his crime of ethics out pace McGwire’s crime of performance?
What makes Brand “Rose” less palpable to the public and to Major League Baseball is that he acted alone and did not have a sea of conspirers to hide among. His brand, regardless of how well he played the game, is marred by his singular action: he knew he was violating one of the strictest rules of baseball — a rule that brings to mind images of corruption, the 1919 Chicago Black Sox scandal, and the notion that the game can be easily fixed.
As American society becomes more fast-paced, it also seems to have a shorter memory and a willingness to forgive. McGwire does not deserve to have a place in the game of Major League Baseball and should be banned for as long as Pete Rose is banned. Double standards are dangerous and Bud Selig is making a mistake if he believes the crime of performance enhancement is less severe than the crime of a pro betting on the game. Either both are wrong and both should be banned from baseball, or both were wrong and should be allowed the same opportunities. Allowing McGwire back into the game without addressing the Rose banishment is patently wrong. So, in the end, it is the brand of “MLB” that takes the hit for the folly of Selig’s ways and, therefore, perhaps it is he, with all of his behind the scenes puppet mastery, who should be banned from baseball?
