Rose asks Hall to re­store el­i­gi­bil­ity

Baltimore Sun - - BASEBALL -

Pete Rose is ap­peal­ing di­rectly to base­ball’s Hall of Fame to re­store his el­i­gi­bil­ity, ar­gu­ing the life­time ban he agreed to in 1989 was never in­tended to keep him out of Coop­er­stown.

A seven-page let­ter to Hall pres­i­dent Jeff Idel­son on Tues­day made the case that the set­tle­ment agree­ment reached by Rose and then-Com­mis­sioner Bart Gia­matti didn’t in­clude a pro­vi­sion that he be in­el­i­gi­ble for elec­tion to the Hall of Fame.

“At the time Pete agreed to the set­tle­ment, the con­se­quences of be­ing placed on the in­el­i­gi­ble list were clear and spe­cific — and did not in­clude a Hall of Fame pro­hi­bi­tion,” ac­cord­ing to the let­ter, signed by Rose’s long­time at­tor­ney Raymond C. Genco and at­tor­ney Mark Rosen­baum.

The Hall of Fame changed its by­laws two years af­ter Rose’s ban­ish­ment to make per­ma­nently banned play­ers in­el­i­gi­ble for the Hall, which shut out the ca­reer hits leader as long as he re­mained barred from base­ball.

In a state­ment, Idel­son said, “Pete Rose re­mains in­el­i­gi­ble for Hall of Fame con­sid­er­a­tion based on the Hall of Fame’s by­laws, which pre­clude any in­di­vid­ual on base­ball’s in­el­i­gi­ble list from be- ing con­sid­ered for elec­tion.” Spokesman Michael Tee­van said MLB­would have no com­ment on Rose’s lat­est ap­peal.

Com­mis­sioner Rob Man­fred in De­cem­ber de­nied the 75-yearold Rose’s lat­est pe­ti­tion for re­in­state­ment, but he also stated it wasn’t his re­spon­si­bil­ity to de­ter­mine whether Rose should be el­i­gi­ble for the Hall. Pe­ti­tion­ing the Hall to change the rule, Genco said, was the next log­i­cal step.

Man­fred al­lowed Rose to par­tic­i­pate in the re­tire­ment of his num­ber by the Reds and his in­duc­tion into the Reds Hall of Fame in June.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.