Rose, Giamatti Forever Linked in Tragedy

Has there ever been a greater tragedy in sports than what happened to A. Bartlett Giamatti and Pete Rose, two names destined to be linked forever?

When a guy who lived for baseball and became so good at it he reached milestones that will probably never be duplicated creates a situation that leads to his being banned from the very game he loved, there is no other way it can be looked upon but tragic. Giamatti’s subsequent death speaks for itself.

As sad as the whole affair is, it is my opinion that because of the way he handled the Rose case, Giamatti leaves the office of commissioner stronger than it was when he assumed the position. In suspending Rose for life, with the understanding he can apply for reinstatement in a year, Giamatti gave us reason to believe a commissioner still can make important decisions for his sport, that lawyers and judges haven’t taken over complete control.

No knock against lawyers and judges, you understand. In recent years, more lawyers have been retained to represent sports people, and once involved do their best to serve their clients. No argument against that.

But, if you have read this space through the years, you realize that the increasing involvement of lawyers and judges in so many of the important decisions in sports is something that I don’t consider progress. These people have no experience in sports, don’t really know them, and so much of what happens in fun and games just doesn’t lend itself to solution by arbitrators, judges, etc. Commissioners have been losing authority, and it says here that’s a step backward rather than forward.

With the exception of Al Davis, almost nobody, including Pete Rozelle, wanted to see the Raiders leave Oakland and relocate in Los Angeles. Yet, Davis took the issue to court, got favorable decisions, and was able to move the franchise, despite years of sellouts in Oakland.

Because of that, Rozelle and the other owners knew they were powerless to so much as lift a finger to stop Robert Irsay from taking the Colts out of Baltimore and moving them to Indianapolis. It is not something Rozelle would have permitted otherwise.

There are many examples in all sports of the insidious erosion of the power of commissioners and others to control their games. If you don’t like something, get an injunction, apply for arbitration, hire a lawyer, go to court.

I thought that as soon as Giamatti had sufficient evidence to suspend Rose he should have taken the action immediately. Then, as with any citizen, Rose could have sought relief from the legal system, but at least the commissioner would have demonstrated authority over his sport.

But, probably because he was new at the job, Giamatti understandably took the cautious approach, and Rose and his lawyers were able to drag the thing out endlessly, to the detriment of the game, and in the long run not even helping Rose himself.

I wonder if the fact that he saw this situation building, along with forthcoming labor negotiations, didn’t help Peter Ueberroth decide to yield his job as commissioner and turn the whole mess over to somebody else. And, you can be sure the inevitable legal maneuverings every time he tried to govern his sport helped Rozelle decide that retirement was ever so much more enticing when compared to the constant hassle. The job has become so much more complicated since he first took it on that there is no comparison.

Rose deserved his suspension. He knew the rules. There are those who believe that in view of the many legal lotteries, etc., the gambling rule in baseball should be relaxed. I don’t buy it. Players aren’t asked to conform to too many rules, and one so important to the integrity of their game shouldn’t be all that difficult to put up with.

Any idea that Giamatti was prejudiced against Rose and wouldn’t give him a fair hearing doesn’t hold water. The man had been a baseball fan most of his life. Once commissioner of that game, why would he want to deprive it of one of its greatest, most popular performers, if he didn’t think it necessary?

The question you hear from all sides now is whether Rose will become a Hall of Famer. I’ve been a voter for 25 years, and if there is one thing I have learned in that time it is not to project. Rose isn’t even eligible until 1992, and between now and then too many things can happen that will influence a vote. What you do is take each individual, each year as they come.

If the vote were tomorrow, I do not believe Rose would be selected. You are asked to consider ethics, and I know too many voters who take that instruction seriously to think Rose would appear on the required 75 percent of the ballots. But, who knows what might happen between now and 1992? Maybe, he’ll be in even more trouble. Perhaps he will be completely exonerated. If so, there is no question he is a first-ballot cinch to join those at Cooperstown.

In the meantime, it was good to see Giamatti take, even if belatedly, what he knew to be the appropriate action. It proved he was in charge of his sport, and in my opinion he leaves the office of commissioner to his successor better than it was when he took over from Ueberroth. It is too bad he didn’t get to hold the job longer.