This week's TMT is a tete-a-tete with another blogger.  Unfortunately, tigervidmar didn't know his tete would be ramming into my tete.  It is great that this forum allows us to show them our tetes.  And with that, I lose all credibility...

In light of the recent news involving middle infielders, some names of the past are popping up as cases for re-evaluation in the court of public opinion.  Case 1AAA is that of Pete Rose.  As tigervidmar points out, Rose is a choir boy, relative to the current crop of cheats. 

The implication here is that we should, perhaps, tolerate a certain level of cheating.  Gaylord Perry cheated.  He's in the Hall of Fame.  Both statements are true, but I would suggest you take that gripe to the BBWAA - not the court of public opinion. 

The funny thing about public opinion, and our perception of it, is that we project our beliefs onto the public.  We are shocked to learn that people may, in fact, frown upon cheating in sports.  After all, we have come to accept that these men are paid handsomely because we pay to see them do something we can't do on a level playing field.  But it has become apparent that this isn't a level playing field.

Some would say that the playing field was level because everyone else was doing it.  Please see my Tuesday entry as to why that high school excuse doesn't hold water.  Basically, 104 out of 1200 (40 man rosters, 30 teams) tested positive.  What is apparent is that some teams seemed to have a drug culture, thus making players believe everyone was doing it.  Furthermore, if you tell the lie enough, perhaps the public will believe you.  

That public relations theory seems to have some effect.  Some people just don't care (and that's fine for you and your dollars).  Just don't project and say that "nobody" cares, or that those who care are moralists. 

This brings me to Pete Rose.  The PED story has given people the ammunition to carry the banner for old Charlie Hustle.  After all, "He always bet ON the Reds."

AHA!

That line of logic is my gotcha moment.  When he bet, he bet on the Reds.  What does that say about Rose's allegiance and competence on the days when he placed no bet on the Reds?  What would go through his head on those nights?  "This is a good situation for Ron Robinson.  We're down a run.  He can hold it here.  Aw heck, I like our odds tomorrow.  I'm sure Ted Power has another inning in him."   

The fact is that we may not know to what degree his rulebreaking benefitted him.  Just the same, an A-Rod 430 foot dirty shot might have been a 415 foot clean shot - both for home runs.  We know there was an effect, we can't quantify it.  But that's why we have rules.  If everyone plays by them, we close the door on these possibilities to doubt what we see. 

Rose broke a rule that is posted in every clubhouse.  Posted, folks!  It's kind of like a no parking sign.  Someone went through the trouble of posting it.  Perhaps they really mean it.  If you don't like the rule, fine.  This isn't a dictatorship.  There are means through which rules can change.  For now, we live with the ones we have.  For now, those operating outside those rules are rightfully branded as cheaters.  It's not a moralistic crusade, it's a statement of fact.