Pete Rose and the Hall

A media report from the New York Daily News in late July suggested baseball Commissioner Bud Selig may finally lift the lifetime ban on former Cincinnati Reds star (and disgraced manager) Pete Rose.

It is an injustice that is long overdue being rectified.

This is not to suggest for a moment that Rose should not have been punished severely for his alleged–and now proven–involvement in betting on sporting events while he was manager of the Reds. That he also bet on baseball, and perhaps his own team, had the potential to damage the integrity of the game, and should have been harshly dealt with.

It was, by the former, late Commissioner Bart Giamatti.

Since the initial allegations, investigations and suspension, Rose has not been allowed to be involved officially in baseball at any level. He was present when his son, Pete Junior, earned his first major league hit many years ago, but his formal appearances, other than at non-MLB-sponsored autograph shows, were few and far between.

Rose denied many times he bet on baseball. But that story changed as the years went by, as the possibility of his ever being enshrined in the Hall-of-Fame diminished year-by-year while he continued to deny the obvious.

Rose may not have been the most humble or likeable guy in baseball, but he is not alone in that regard in his baseball, or professional sports for that matter.

At the end of the day, there are many reasons Rose should be allowed some standing, at least, in the baseball community:

- He made a mistake. Not a small one, to be sure, and one that was repeated, clearly. But baseball is filled with individuals who made mistakes and were forgiven. Steve Howe, the former pitcher, was suspended half a dozen times by major league baseball and was always allowed to return to play the game.

- Many see gambling as a disease, a compulsive illness not unlike other kinds of addiction. Surely if it is an illness and can be treated, dealt with and potentially cured, the former athlete can be forgiven.

- Baseball has a history of cheaters prospering. Gaylord Perry acknowledged he threw an illegal pitch (for most of his 20+ year career), and yet he is enshrined in the Hall-of-Fame. Why not Rose?

- Speaking of cheaters prospering, it is inconceivable at best that Selig and the powers-that-be in baseball were unaware that players were using steroids throughout the 90’s and to the present. The late Ken Caminiti, National league MVP in 1996, admitted his own dependence years before his death. That baseball owners and general managers looked the other way when players suddenly bulked up as never before–and when 15-home-run-guys started hitting 40 and 50 home runs a season–is indisputable. It was good business for baseball to ignore the obvious, just as it is now good public relations to have a deathbed-style repentance in an effort to supposedly rid the game of performance-enhancing substances.

- If lying is a reason to keep him out, then every player who has denied using steroids over the past 15 years should be forever off the Hall-of-Fame ballot, given the obvious reliance on various banned or inappropriate substances by so many players over the past 15 or more years.

- To re-state the historical facts, Rose’s error in judgment/illness that caused his suspension occurred after his playing career was over, and when he was managing the Reds. It would be hard to argue he should be in the Hall in the “builder” category, for sure. But as the all-time leader in hits, he clearly deserves induction.

The above does not even include the fact that O.J. Simpson remains a member in good standing in the football Hall-of-Fame, presumably because that league does not judge his actions after his career was over.

History, the social convention of a call to forgiveness–and baseball simply looking at itself in the mirror–should compel Selig to do the right thing.

Maybe Rose will finally end up where he belongs, as a player, in Cooperstown, in 2010.

Buckner earns his due... far too late

I’m so pleased that Bill Buckner was recently recognized before a Red Sox game and given a long ovation by the local fans.

It has troubled me for years that one play from his career, his late inning error in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, has been the one mark on his career that is constantly brought up.

In my memory, Buckner was the kind of player who could be on my team any day. Tough, he played with and through injuries. A lifetime batting average close to .300. Played hard and well for many years.

Unlike many of the ballplayers of the last 15 years, he was not, to anyone’s knowledge, a cheater by any standard.

Yet, he made one “error” in a game that Sox were not necessarily going to win anyway, and he was—and is—vilified by arm chair observers.

He and his family suffered through the aftermath. I quote at length from a recent Associated Press story:

The former first baseman knew the same old questions would crop up about that play 22 years ago that has been replayed on television hundreds of times. At first, he turned down the team's request. A few days later he agreed to return to Fenway Park for the first time since 1997 when he was batting coach with the Chicago White Sox.

"I really had to forgive," he said after collecting himself, "not the fans of Boston per se, but I would have to say, in my heart, I had to forgive the media..."
Another pause, this one for 10 seconds, before he continued, "...for what they put me and my family through. So I've done that. I'm over that. And I'm just happy that I just try to think of the positive. The happy things."

And not about the night of Oct. 25 in Shea Stadium when Mookie Wilson's ground ball rolled through his legs in the 10th inning. It capped a three-run rally and drove in the winning run in the New York Mets 6-5 win that forced a seventh game.

The Mets won the final game 8-5 and Boston's streak of no championships since 1918 continued. That drought ended in 2004, and then the Red Sox made it two championships in four years.

Buckner, a .289 hitter in 22 years with more than 100 RBIs in two of his three full seasons with Boston, wasn't the only Red Sox player who failed in the last two games of the 1986 Series. To focus on just one play is "the ugly part of sports," he said.

"I don't think that in society in general that's the way we should operate. What are you teaching kids? Not to try because if you don't succeed then you're going to buried [sic], so don't try?"

The Mets already had tied the game at 5 in the 10th against Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley before Wilson hit the ball to Buckner. And the Red Sox led 3-0 after 5 1/3 innings of Game 7 before the Mets tied it against Bruce Hurst in the bottom of the sixth and nicked Schiraldi for three runs in the seventh.

"You can look at that series and point fingers in a whole bunch of different directions," Buckner said. "We did the best we could to win there and it just didn't happen and I didn't feel like I deserved" so much blame."

"If I felt like it was my fault, I'd step up to the plate and say, 'hey, if I wasn't here the Red Sox would have won this thing,' but I really can't do that so I think some of it is unjustly directed my way," he said. "I'm pretty tough mentally, but the hardest part was with my family and my kids and I'm still dealing with it."

Since I work with a lot of young athletes, I want to focus in particular on one of Buckner more poignant comments:

"I don't think that in society in general that's the way we should operate. What are you teaching kids? Not to try because if you don't succeed then you're going to buried, so don't try?"

Amen.

Here was a guy, good enough to be starting and playing in the World Series, who had a near Hall-of-Fame career, who simply made an error on a ball that didn’t quite bounce the way he expected it to bounce.

It is so easy when you’ve never played the game at a high level to criticize someone when they make a mistake at a “key moment” in a game. I’ve done it myself, for sure.

But the reaction to Buckner and his error in the ’86 World Series was so unfounded, so unfair, that it is heartwarming to see that he has been able to speak so eloquently about it, years later.

The media and its need to criticize in cases like this should not be easily forgiven. But apparently Buckner has, and he is a better person for having done so than those who have put him down over the years.

Maybe the rest of us can learn something. Or if it’s too late for us, at least maybe our kids can distinguish between what’s truly important, and what’s not, in sports, and in life.

Buckner and the ’86 Red Sox did not win the World Series. But for me, he is a champion.

Wild do the right thing

There are many different ways to communicate.

In the following case, actions speak louder than words.

This week, the Minnesota Wild announced they would offer a seriously injured player a contract, even though, technically, they are not required to do so to retain his playing rights.

The player is Kurtis Foster, a young defenseman who suffered a badly broken leg in a controversial icing-play incident.

Wire stories reported that Wild GM Doug Risebrough had already decided on a course of action.

One story, from TSN.com, reports that the Wild are not sure if Foster will be able to play in the NHL again, because of the seriousness of the injury.

"I don't have to qualify him [to retain his rights], but I will," Risebrough told the (Minneapolis) Star-Tribune. "It's a bad message not to do that. He's a good player. He needs a motivation [to rehab], and he doesn't need that stress in his life."

The Wild will offer Foster a one-year, $1.025 million contract before the June 25 deadline, which insurance would not have covered according to Wild assistant general manager Tom Lynn.

The professional sports world often reflects a kind of ego-driven and self-centered attitude, an environment which can be very cold and all about “business”.

In this instance, it seems clear that the Wild recognize that one of their own was hurt while in the line of duty, and they aren’t prepared to let him worry about his immediate future.

They have sent a message and they have done the right—and honorable—thing.

It's all about... me.

In an English Premiership soccer tilt this past December, powerhouse Manchester United was in full control of a game against a lesser opponent.

With a 3-0 lead, emerging star Carlo Tevez had scored twice already in the contest.

Fairly late in the contest, United was awarded a penalty kick. Cristiano Ronaldo prepared to handle the shot, as he is the player designated by Coach Sir Alex Ferguson to take such opportunities.

When Tevez quietly approached Ronaldo, the team’s “superstar”, to ask if he could take the kick to complete his “hat trick”, Ronaldo reportedly said “no”.

Ego and self-interest have always been a huge part of sport. In fact, many would argue that those are “qualities” that top athletes need, along with self-confidence, to ensure their success at the highest levels.

But Ronaldo’s response was a flawed one, nonetheless.

It is understandable that a proud athlete like Ronaldo would want to take that kick, as that is one of his designated jobs with United.

Perhaps he said “no” to his own teammate, Tevez, and later regretted it, though this is unlikely given Ronaldo’s history.

It could also happen that a player would let Tevez, or any other teammate, take his place in such a situation, and do the “right” thing publicly, but privately be unhappy about it.

This response would be quite human.

But the true leader, the real “team player”, would take it upon himself to give the opportunity to a teammate. He wouldn’t wait to be asked.

It could be argued that Tevez was being selfish, too, by even making that request; that he was putting his own personal glory ahead of his team.

But an athlete with class would not even have to be asked. He would have gone over to Tevez and insisted his young teammate take the shot.

That it didn’t happen is not a surprise. Just disappointing, and yet another poor example for young athletes around the globe.

Time for a priority check

Just days ago, in Southern Ontario, a "brawl" of sorts broke out during a hockey game.

That in and of itself is not stirring news. But when we discover that the participants were not professionals or even junior age players, but rather 8 year-olds, it does beg some questions, including:

- Where are the "coaches" in these situations? At the NHL level, in this day and age, coaches are suspended in situations where they are seen to not be "in control" of their players—players who themselves are grown men. Are these youth "coaches" not "in control" of their players?

- What messages are these young, impressionable children (they are children, not "athletes", at this age) receiving from their coaches?

- If we can’t "blame" the children for this kind of event, then where do we look? What influence are parents having, for example? The media?

We’ve all heard time and again that the "problem" is that parents all think their kinds will make it to the pro level, and thus are over-invested in their kids. And this leads, based on that theory, to misplaced priorities, etc.

But surely we’re not having brawls at the age of 8 because ALL the parents of these kids think they are raising future NHL’ers.

Are we taking youth sports way too seriously? Are our priorities in fact messed up? Do we keep score too soon? Is the pervasive ‘winning at all costs’ attitude seeping all the way down to the youngest levels of the game?

It’s too easy to generalize, but this is serious stuff. Not the "sky is falling" kind of serious, perhaps, but it’s serious when little kids start hockey brawls.

Hockey Canada and various provincial Associations have spent tons of money in recent years on education—ad campaigns directed at parents, seminars for coaches, clinics on not hitting from behind, players wearing STOP patches, studies on concussions and much more.

But as long as Canada wins gold every year at the World Juniors, everyone is happy.

What’s a brawl or two on the way to what’s really important?

Criticizing a teammate has its price

I’ve spoken often in these commentaries about the importance of being a true team player.

This applies at any level, from elite youth sports to the professional ranks.

It is not easy to be a team player. Every athlete, every competitor, wants to be on the field of play, wants to contribute to their team’s success and wants to be recognized in some fashion.

This can put you at odds with the “team” concept when you are the one called upon to take a seat—especially if you are generally a “starter” and expect to play.

The fact that in sports we count not only wins and losses (a team stat) but goals and assists, or home runs and touchdowns (individual stats) makes it even more difficult.

We hear, for example, about the NFL running back that gains 2,000 yards in a season, but most fans could not name two of the offensive linemen who made the blocks to allow the all-star back to shine.

This makes the player who contributes in subtle but important ways less visible to most fans, though generally not to astute coaches.

One recent example of the difficulty in being a ‘team player’ came as the U.S. women’s soccer team was preparing to play the semi-final of a World Cup qualifier against Brazil.

The U.S. coach decided to play a veteran keeper over a younger goalie, Hope Solo, who had played well leading up to the Brazil game.

The U.S. lost 4-0 and afterwards, on her personal web site, Solo commented that,

"There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves," Solo said. "You have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names. You can't live in the past."

The implication was clear: the U.S. squad started the other goalie based on past reputation; she (Solo) would have made the stops the other goalie didn’t.

And Solo said so publicly.

Reaction to her comments was quite negative.

Seemingly trying to work her way through the reaction—so as not to appear as though she had “jumped ship”, in terms of standing by her teammates—an ESPN web story later related the following:

On Friday, Solo said while she still doubts Ryan's strategy, she did not mean to hurt Scurry.

"Although I stand strong in everything I said, the true disheartening moment for me was realizing it could look as though I was taking a direct shot at my own teammate," Solo said, according to the Web site. "I would never throw such a low blow. Never."

Is it easy to understand Solo’s frustration at being benched before the biggest game of the year?

Certainly.

But did she, in effect, cross the invisible line when she made her initial post-game comments?

Yes again.

A day later, the U.S. team’s Head Coach removed Solo from the squad, perhaps only temporarily. But she was not even on the bench when the U.S. won the event’s third-place game.

The coach’s comment:

“We have moved forward with 20 players who have stood by each other, who have battled for each other. And when the hard times came -- and the Brazil game was a hard time -- they stood strong."

The inference was clear: Solo, in making her comments—and subsequent apology notwithstanding—had indeed crossed that invisible line.

I have often reiterated that the media criticizes athletes for being vanilla, but in the same breath often admonishes them when they are candid and honest.

In this instance, Solo’s sin was not simply being honest and speaking her mind, but seemingly putting her own feelings above those of the team, in a public forum.

Is this fair?

Coaches want athletes who are confident, who believe in themselves. Solo was showing, by her comments, that she believed very strongly in herself.

But when she made the comments, she also, perhaps inadvertently, criticized her own teammate.

Reports suggest the U.S. may now bring in other goalies as part of the national squad going forward.

There is sometimes a price to pay for speaking out. In this instance, the comments will be remembered for a long time in the soccer world, and will no doubt follow Solo.

A steep price, for sure.

The cooling-off period between the game and the time she created her web comments might have provided Solo with the opportunity to massage the rough edges of her true feelings.

For reasons only she can answer, she chose to go a different route with her public comments.

Once made, you can’t take them back.

Bill Belichick: stand in line

That an NFL team has been "caught" cheating (illegal videotaping of opposition signals) should come as little surprise. Cheating has been a temptation in—and a part of—sports for all long as we all can remember.

It is part of the human condition, it would seem—at least the temptation to do so. Everyone wants to get “the edge”, whether achieved “legally” or otherwise.

The examples of cheating in sports are many. Hall-of-Fame pitcher Gaylord Perry was a well-known “cheat”, scuffing and greasing baseballs on his way to 300+ career victories. No one speaks of his plaque being taken down at Cooperstown. Fellow Hall-of-Famer Whitey Ford has admitted publicly that he cheated toward the end of his career in an effort to hang on; he is still a hero to many. Well-known White Sox broadcaster and former player Ken “Hawk” Harrelson has admitted that he corked his bat; many others have done the same through the years. (Albert Belle and Sammy Sosa were caught; most aren’t.)

But the slippery ethical slope has manifested itself in myriad ways in the current era, and it does not reflect well on professional sports, or its ongoing and pervasively negative influence on youth sports.

Professional sports is entertainment, to be sure. Perhaps we assume an element of trickery, of ego, of smugness— among other less than admirable traits.

But far too many pro athletes act as though a good play must be followed by a Hulk Hogan pose or a dance. The limits of what is acceptable bend further and further every year.

We all understand that greed is at the forefront of the pro game. I recall my father and I, in the late 1970’s, discussing that Bruce Sutter held out for the then un-heard of (for a relief pitcher) sum of $700,000, I think it was. His comment was that he had to look out for his family’s future. My dad, who raised 5 children and never made more than $6,000 a year in his life, couldn’t believe the comment. He must have wondered how athletes could be such poor financial planners.

Thirty years later, we actually hear athletes saying the same thing when they are “insulted” by the latest multi-million dollar offer from their clubs. They need even more, because, we are told, they must “look out for their family’s future”.

Remarkable. Is it the arrogance, the selfishness, or the simple lack of perspective that people find disheartening?

(It is these same athletes, in the NFL, for example, who can’t share their immense wealth to help retired athletes who are now destitute and in need of basic medial care, but that is a situation we have already discussed…)

We already have young athletes talking back to umpires and to hockey and soccer referees; diving on the ice and the soccer pitch looking to draw un-deserved fouls, utilizing attitudes and “skills” they have learned from the pros. (This does not even take into account example of athletes who run afoul of the law, seemingly because they, with their wealth and their sense of superiority, believe they are above the law…and other people.)

But now, we are going beyond mere greed, or bad behaviour that sets a poor example for young people.

Now, the integrity of the game itself is coming into question.

Just in the last couple of years, professional soccer has seen massive scandals in Italy and elsewhere, specifically with Clubs and Referees on the take. Juventus gets pushed down one division and is right back in the top League. Not much of a lesson there.

Baseball saw records smashed in the 1990’s. Does anyone believe those records were set without the use of steroids? Not a chance. People – the media, fans, the commissioner—knew what was happening then, and they know it now. But it was OK when the game needed a boost. Now a kind of deathbed, superficial show of repentance is on display. Players like Rafael Palmeiro become a scapegoat because they are “caught”.

Basketball has it own issues. A referee is going to jail because he was involved in fixing games. This is the NBA, the league that didn’t want people in the province of Ontario to be able to bet on Raptor games through ProLine, if I recall correctly.

And now it is confirmed that the 3-time Super Bowl Champion Patriots and their future Hall-of-Fame Coach have cheated. Not by accident, by design.

To add insult to injury, Bill Belichick won’t comment on the deception. No regrets, no real apologies—saying only that he is “moving on”.

I’m sure he is.

The League’s response: a modest fine, and a lost draft choice.

(Pete Rose won’t be allowed into the Hall-of Fame because he bet on baseball games, though he did this as a manager, not a player…He was banned for life and we don’t even know if his betting influenced his judgment as a manager. We know what the Patriots did gave them a competitive advantage but they receive not even a suspension of any kind…)

Many used to think boxing was the sport that was seen as tainted because of its apparent connection with organized crime.

Now, is it fair to say that most major professional sports are no better than boxing ever was in ethical terms?

What do we tell our kids?

Or do we bother to even have the conversation because it’s too late to change how we view sports, and the role of sports in society?

Too Much Rooney

After watching Wayne Rooney play at the World Cup throughout June, it is beyond dispute that he is a world-class player—perhaps one of the finest young soccer players in the world.

That he came back so quickly from a serious injury—suffered only weeks prior to the biggest tournament in sports—is a testament to his toughness and sheer determination.

The unfortunate flip side of the Rooney coin is that he is not, in some other important ways, a great role model for young soccer players.

The play that saw him red-carded at a critical time for the English squad in the quarter-final World Cup game seemed to be reflective of his approach to that game—and to others:

He’ll do what he wants, when he wants, and expects, it seems, no consequences.

He seemed stunned that he would be penalized for his ill-timed and selfish act, just as he seems continually perplexed when he is called for often deserved infractions during his play with Manchester United in the English Premier League. (In light of his agitated on-field demeanor, is it any wonder impressionable young players are so often seen throwing their hands up whenever a referee makes a call that goes against them?)

Some observers suggest Rooney did no wrong in “stepping on” a sensitive part of his opponent’s body. They claim he did so inadvertently.

That view might hold water, if Rooney’s career had not been filled to this point with many other angry outbursts and well-earned yellow cards.

Oddly, much of the media reaction to this most-recent Rooney incident was to blame Cristiano Rinaldo for lobbying the referee to throw Rooney out of the game.

Rather than lay the blame for uncontrolled behavior at the feet of the person who acted in a childish manner, the press sought to vilify Ronaldo, who was not otherwise even involved in the play in question.

Interestingly, the departing English National coach has publicly implored the English media to go easy on Rooney and support him. Understandable sentiments on the one hand, as Rooney will clearly be a key figure in future English World Cup efforts.

But if Rooney is not ultimately responsible for his actions, and does not have to fear any consequences, what is his motivation to alter his attitude and behavior?

And what example, again, does this set for young athletes? You can disrespect fellow players, behave any way you want, as long as you are a top player?

No person is perfect. No athlete can be the perfect role model, to be sure. And particularly in this day in age of greed and excess and media exposure, expecting or even hoping for ‘role-model’ behavior on and off the field may not be at all fair or realistic in any event.

Rooney is only 20. He is a wonderful and talented footballer. Like many before him, he may, over time, grow in wisdom and maturity while still maintaining his elite level of play.

But in the interim, it is unfortunate that he seems unable or unwilling to make certain attitude adjustments—and unfortunate that those coaching and advising him are willing to look the other way.

Rhonaldino, another immense talent, did not have the best World Cup in 2006, and seemed to miss the drive in big games that would have positively marked his career forever. But he at least presents on and off the field as someone who truly enjoys what he is doing and loves the gifts and opportunities he has been given.

Rhonaldino with a bit more grit; Rooney with a lot less anger.

That would seem to add up to the near perfect soccer player.

And maybe one worthy of aspiring young people looking up to.

Questions Regarding the Lifting of the Bertuzzi Suspension

The unseemly haste with which Hockey Canada invited Todd Bertuzzi to participate in the recent Team Canada Olympic orientation camp in Western Canada struck many observers as at best ironic and, at worst, crass.

At that camp, how ironic was it to see Canadian players wearing Team Canada practice jerseys with the “STOP” patch on the back of their jerseys? (The STOP patch was designed to remind youth-level hockey players never to hit an opposing player from behind, because of the high risk of injury.)

Ironic, in that Hockey Canada administrators have been preaching to young players and coaches for years (and rightly so) about the very real dangers of hitting opposing players from behind.

Yet Todd Bertuzzi, the perpetrator of one of the most blatant and dangerous “hits from behind” in hockey history, was invited to play for Team Canada within minutes of his suspension being lifted.

With this as a backdrop, there are some basic questions that either have not been asked as people debate this issue, or have not been adequately answered.

- If Todd Bertuzzi was not an NHL “superstar”, would his suspension have been more severe?

- Why are some ‘fans’ actually applauding Todd Bertuzzi? (Because he is back playing? Because he said he was sorry? Because he is a star player?)

- Yes, Todd Bertuzzi has said he is “sorry” for his actions. Did we expect him to say he wasn’t sorry?

- Bertuzzi says he has had sleepless nights. How many sleepless nights has Steve Moore likely experienced?

- How much, if any, subtle or not so subtle persuasion — or outright lobbying — occurred involving Team Canada officials and the NHL?

- Bertuzzi has said he believes in forgiveness and second chances. Is it easier to “believe” in those things when you are the one who caused harm to someone else?

- What would Bertuzzi be saying now if he was the individual who was physically handicapped because of the cowardly actions of another player?

- Bertuzzi has said he just wants to “get back to playing”, essentially ignoring Steve Moore’s current reality. (Moore is unable to play hockey.) But how would Bertuzzi feel if he lost his livelihood not just for 17 months, but for the rest of his life, as is likely the case with Steve Moore, if someone had jumped him from behind?

- Even if Steve Moore were to somehow regain the physical and emotional strength required to play at the NHL level, what NHL club would sign him, given the obvious politics involved?

- How many people have noticed how NHL stars, including Avalanche players who were teammates of Steve Moore, have fallen into line publicly, stating their support of and for Bertuzzi?

- Why are some of these star players talking as though Steve Moore is “doing better”, when in fact Moore and his representatives are saying he still faces a monumental struggle ahead? Where is the evidence he is doing better? Or is that just a line some players are using in public to try to make this go away?

- If any of us were in Steve Moore’s shoes, how would we feel watching Todd Bertuzzi play and earn millions of dollars, while our career was likely over and we still couldn’t do ‘normal’ daily tasks comfortably?

- Why is the hockey community seeming to shun Steve Moore?

- How are young Canadian children now supposed to react to those “It’s just a game” ads from Hockey Canada that have been appearing for so long? Is the message that the values supported in those public service announcements should apply to parents and youth, but not to NHL superstars?