Gray interview out of bounds
Milton Kent's column on Tuesday seeking to justify Jim Gray's inexcusable interrogation of Pete Rose is as mystifying as his frequent favorable references to Dick Vitale.
Apparently to Kent, operating under the guise of "journalist" is sufficient justification for rudeness and inappropriate questioning. I would presume Kent would affirm Gray's avenue of questioning whether he had caught Rose at his mother's funeral or at his own wedding. Kent seems to believe the axiom "there is an appointed time for everything" does not include journalists at work.
Gray is in need of some instruction in courtesy. Being granted the forum at such an auspicious event is not a blank check to raise any issue that seems important to the journalist. Indeed, there is an appointed time for everything, and a World Series pre-game celebration is not necessarily the prudent moment to raise ugly issues.
Come on, Milton, admit it! Gray was totally out of line, the American public overwhelmingly recognizes that fact, and Gray's semi-apology at the start of the third game was tacit affirmation that he erred.
Now let's hear a mea culpa from Kent.
David A. Shive, Catonsville
Rose has paid his dues
NBC sunk to a new low with its pre-game interview with Pete Rose following the All-Century Team celebration last Sunday. Ill-timed and totally classless are just a few words to describe it.
C'mon, Rose has paid his dues and still is paying them. Give the guy a break. Had he not been "Charlie Hustle," would everyone still care?
How many interviews has NBC done lately with repeat drug abusers of the NFL or Major League Baseball? Or, better yet, when's the last time Marv Albert was grilled in front of a nationwide audience?
It's time to let Rose out on parole.
Andy Zinkand, Baltimore
No sympathy for Rose
What was so bad about Jim Gray's interview with Pete Rose?
Gray was doing his job to get information and he was roundly criticized in the media later that night and beyond.
Rose is a belligerent individual and seems to want people to feel sorry for him.
He signed the papers that banned him for life for gambling on baseball, and that in itself would be enough for him to be kept out of the Hall of Fame and out of baseball.
He continues to have the impression that he never did anything wrong, but there were stories about his guilt that he hasn't denied. He may have done well playing the game, but he cheapened himself and baseball players and fans by his actions.
I think he deserves his punishment and the commissioner should never back down on the banishment.
Joseph A. Dyson, Baltimore
Team of the '90s? Yankees
I must respectfully disagree with Sun columnist John Eisen- berg, who felt that even if the Yankees won the World Series, the Braves are the team of the '90s.
With one World Series victory? I don't think so.
Eisenberg's column also neglected to mention who had the best record in baseball in 1994 at the time of the strike. It was the Yankees.
Greatness is not measured by total regular-season wins in a weak division like the one the Braves have played in. Or even by how often you get to the World Series. Greatness is measured in winning the big ones, going all the way, and the Yankees won again, so they are the team of the '90s.
The Braves can fight it out with the Blue Jays for second place. It's a spot they've become accustomed to.
Jeff Mariner, Towson