June 22, 2015

And like that, Rob Manfred takes the application for reinstatement from Pete Rose's lawyer and tosses it into the garbage.

Let's go through the list one more time:

"I never bet on sports."
"I never bet on baseball."
"I never bet on Reds games."
"I never bet on Reds games as a player."
"I never bet against the Reds as a player."

That last statement by Rose is the only one he hasn't been caught lying about...yet.

posted by grum@work at 02:45 PM on June 22

Pete's made it very, very difficult to remain a homer.

posted by tahoemoj at 03:17 PM on June 22

I need to read through that story a few more times to make sure I get what's going on.

I didn't realize that US Postal Inspectors had such dynamic crime fighting capability and initiative.

I didn't realize that evidence so critical could be kept off limits, unacknowledged, hidden from public view, and shuttled around between government bureaus like that. Even though the people keeping the documents hidden knew full well how useful they would be to an ongoing investigation. They could have redacted the documents to protect the third parties that they claim to be so concerned about.

The reasoning of the US Attorney's office for denying access to the material sounds and feels like discretionary nonsense. They were content to let the saga play out as it did without that evidence. So much time, effort, and bullshit wrangling could have been avoided.

How did OTL and Dowd finally get access to the docs since the FOI request was previously denied?

posted by beaverboard at 03:25 PM on June 22

At this point, it's not even the cheating that bugs me - it's the flat out, repeated, and unrepentant lying to save whatever little bit of face is left and letting fans go out there and try to make a case for you that you know is false.

Manfried must feel like he dodged a bullet with this coming out now. The tide was turning on Charlie Hustle, and thankfully he's going to stay exactly where he belongs - outside of the game.

posted by dfleming at 03:27 PM on June 22

I never saw Rose's potential reinstatement hinging on him being someone who was wrongly punished.

It is about deciding that a quarter-century ban is sufficient punishment and a 74-year-old man should be able to return to the game before he's dead.

posted by rcade at 04:39 PM on June 22

I never saw Rose's potential reinstatement hinging on him being someone who was wrongly punished.

I'm pretty sure that his reinstatement did hinge on him being truthful and showing contrition about what he had done.

I don't think we've seen any of that, have we?

posted by grum@work at 04:42 PM on June 22

Like dfleming says, the cover-up is often worse than the crime. At the very least, it exacerbates it, and makes one's ability to forgive exceedingly difficult. (Compare Andy Pettitte to Roger Clemens--they probably both used PEDs together, but Pettitte was slowly, then warmly welcomed back to the Yankees, while Clemens still walks around defending himself to skeptics.)

Also, Rose's punishment--which he personally accepted at the time--was a lifetime ban from participation in anything related to Major League Baseball. He's been petitioning in public to change the terms of his deal. Sounds like whoever leaked this notebook to ESPN disagrees.

posted by werty at 05:17 PM on June 22

I'm pretty sure that his reinstatement did hinge on him being truthful and showing contrition about what he had done.

I never saw a news story where Manfred mapped out the process under which he'd consider reinstatement. I've assumed that it's a situation where Manfred knows what he wants to do and the process will take shape accordingly.

It seems ridiculous to think that Rose would be able to come clean with something not yet acknowledged *and* still have any chance at reinstatement. The new admission would be treated as justification for continuing the ban because he didn't admit it earlier.

The bottom line for me is that he's 74. For me, every drop of emotion has been wrung out of this. Let the old fart be a part of the game, and if there are concerns some team might put him in a prominent position, limit what he's allowed to do.

posted by rcade at 07:58 PM on June 22

Let the old fart be a part of the game, and if there are concerns some team might put him in a prominent position, limit what he's allowed to do.

Why let him be part of the game at all?

He had a chance in 2004 to set the record straight. He chose to lie to the fans and to folks in the game - yet again.

He's still the hits leader. He works for FOX in baseball. What more does Pete Rose deserve considering he's still lying about what he did?

posted by dfleming at 08:36 PM on June 22

The bottom line for me is that he's 74.

Is he still alive? Has the definition of "permanent" changed?

I saw it explained like this:

It's like an employee of the company that was a model citizen for the first 30 years, but then during the last 10 years he embezzled millions of dollars and was finally caught. Do you decide 20 years after he was fired to ignore the embezzlement and give him a gold watch for his retirement?

posted by grum@work at 10:03 PM on June 22

Why let him be part of the game at all?

Because 26 years is long enough for his punishment. I think it's way past long enough and deeply into ridiculous territory. Baseball is hardly so pristine that his jersey should be a hair shirt for a quarter century and counting.

Alex Rodriguez was suspended for a season for being a huge PED cheat. Is what Rose did 26 times as bad?

Marge Schott was banned in 1996 for racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler statements and reinstated two years later. Is what Rose did 13 times as bad?

Has the definition of "permanent" changed?

Can you honestly tell me that when Pete Rose received a "lifetime" ban, you thought it would be for his entire life? If yes, then you can play the "permanent" card. If not, then like me you always knew permanent actually meant "a long-ass time but quite possibly not forever," so here we are.

Do you decide 20 years after he was fired to ignore the embezzlement and give him a gold watch for his retirement?

This punishment isn't one company, though. It covers a giant range of companies and activities that includes all teams in the majors, all affiliated teams in the minors and related activities such as being a sports agent.

Most embezzlers would have been convicted and released long before 26 years had passed and could be hired by any entity that wanted to hire him.

posted by rcade at 10:52 PM on June 22

Most embezzlers would have been convicted and released long before 26 years had passed and could be hired by any entity that wanted to hire him.

Pete Rose is working for FOX Sports.
Pete Rose has done work for the WWE (and is in THEIR HOF).
Pete Rose goes to autograph shows and gets paid quite handsomely for doing so.
Pete Rose also did a promotional appearance for an independent league team.

I don't see Pete Rose having any problem earning a living outside of MLB (and their wholly-owned minor league teams).

In this case the "company" (MLB) has made it clear it will never hire him again.

Alex Rodriguez was suspended for a season for being a huge PED cheat. Is what Rose did 26 times as bad?

Yes. Actually, much worse than 26 times as bad. ARod's usage did not put the integrity in question for the games in which he participated. Nobody takes PEDs in order to do worse.

Marge Schott was banned in 1996 for racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler statements and reinstated two years later. Is what Rose did 13 times as bad?

Yes. Schott was a terrible person, but she did not risk the integrity of the sport. Her personal opinions don't affect the outcome of the games.

As has been stated many times, there is one rule that MLB holds above all others for their employees, ever since the Black Sox scandal.

Don't. Bet. On. Baseball.

He knew it. He broke it. He got his punishment.

It would be like petitioning the government to rehire someone who had been convicted of treason/spying. "Oh, it was 26 years ago, and he's sorry he did it. He deserves another chance!"

Can you honestly tell me that when Pete Rose received a "lifetime" ban, you thought it would be for his entire life?

Well, it does have the word "lifetime" in it. When Pete Rose is dead, his family can petition to have him reinstated and then maybe he can get in on a Veteran's Committee ballot.

*snicker*

One more thing: Do you think that Tim Donaghy should be allowed to referee NBA games after a few more years of banishment? If not, then why would Pete Rose be allowed back in the game? Is it only because he's the "Hit King"? So really good/famous players/people should have a different set of rules than everyone else?

posted by grum@work at 11:13 PM on June 22

^^ this.

posted by werty at 11:25 PM on June 22

I'm all for Pete Rose being reinstated, and being put on the HOF ballot...the day after Shoeless Joe gets the same treatment, and not a day before...

posted by MeatSaber at 01:00 AM on June 23

It's fairly hypocritical of baseball, a sport that has seen it's share of cheating scandals and overall bad behaviour, to decide that there is one single kind of misbehaviour that will get you a life sentence. I mean, wasn't it like way back last week that the Cardinals were found to have hacked another team's intellectual/commercial property? Baseball has this holier than thou thing going on which is frankly ludicrous and a figleaf on what is a cut-throat business.

It's like the NCAA, full of some terrible shenanigans, but OMG if an athlete gets a free pen then pin his ass to the wall. Obviously what Rose did was not right, and obviously he's kind of a jackass which doesn't help his case, but enough is enough.

posted by rumple at 01:46 AM on June 23

There's a difference between Cardinals hackin, or the NCAA's bullshit rules, and prohibitions against betting on the sport you play in. Baseball did have a famously corrupt World Series in 1919, it even made the news a bit. :) They've been touchy about gambling ever since.

And that makes good sense! There's a world of difference between cheating as in breaking or at least bending the game rules to gain an edge- PEDs, sign stealing, scuffing the ball, that sort of thing- and doing something that suggests the game itself has a rigged outcome due to one or more participants. At least in the former, you know it's just people trying to get ahead: they're still competing. But if they bet on the games, and thus conceivably might have been "paid" to lose, you no longer know if you're really seeing a competition..

posted by hincandenza at 05:06 AM on June 23

Because 26 years is long enough for his punishment. I think it's way past long enough and deeply into ridiculous territory. Baseball is hardly so pristine that his jersey should be a hair shirt for a quarter century and counting.

Alex Rodriguez was suspended for a season for being a huge PED cheat. Is what Rose did 26 times as bad?

Marge Schott was banned in 1996 for racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler statements and reinstated two years later. Is what Rose did 13 times as bad?

Baseball didn't want A-Rod back (nor did the Yankees), but unfortunately they don't get to unilaterally ban guys from the game for PEDs. The union has a say, particularly when contracts are being negotiated.

Do I think A-Rod belongs in the game at all? No, I don't. Do you?

Marge Schott to me is entirely irrelevant, because PEDs and betting on baseball are about the integrity of the game, not about whether a person is a horrible human being or not.

You're conflating this with crimes like embezzlement which is again irrelevant. People banned from their profession are done so for life routinely because they've undermined the integrity of everyone else doing it. There's no fundamental right to be associated with the profession of your choice as there is a fundamental right to freedom after a jail sentence.

Pete Rose is still doing damage to baseball - this would not be a story if in 2004 he had've said "yes, I bet on games I was in when I was a player." He didn't, and now baseball gets to deal with entire news cycles on this stuff yet again.

Pete Rose has also been making something like a million dollars a year in speaking fees as a former player. He has a job in baseball. He's benefitted from his legacy as the hits leader, but the game won't benefit at all from letting him back in, in part because he continues to plague them with his the fact even his mea culpas (which netted him money too) were full of lies.

posted by dfleming at 07:50 AM on June 23

I didn't realize that US Postal Inspectors had such dynamic crime fighting capability and initiative.

It was a long time ago, but in the Wild West days, the postal inspectors were the only federal police force. People would rob general stores that had postal annexes in them, draw a line in chalk around the postal annex, and write "DEAR POSTAL INSPECTORS -- WE NEVER CROSSED THIS LINE.", because that way it would only be the local sheriff looking for them instead of the Feds.

posted by Etrigan at 09:03 AM on June 23

It would be like petitioning the government to rehire someone who had been convicted of treason/spying. "Oh, it was 26 years ago, and he's sorry he did it. He deserves another chance!"

That, and he's not even sorry he did it.

posted by bender at 09:08 AM on June 23

Well, it does have the word "lifetime" in it.

So do life prison sentences. Yet ...

You're conflating this with crimes like embezzlement ...

Grum brought that comparison up, not me.

I'm all for Pete Rose being reinstated, and being put on the HOF ballot...the day after Shoeless Joe gets the same treatment, and not a day before...

Deal. Shoeless Joe today, Rose tomorrow.

posted by rcade at 09:31 AM on June 23

Well, it does have the word "lifetime" in it.

So do life prison sentences. Yet ...

Life in prison without parole exists, doesn't it?
And even if you have a life prison sentence with the possibility of parole, it doesn't mean they have to give you parole just because you've been in there for a long period of time.

You're conflating this with crimes like embezzlement ...

Grum brought that comparison up, not me.

Actually, you made a slight side step with the analogy.

I said that the embezzler wouldn't be welcomed back to the company from which he embezzled.

My original comment:
It's like an employee of the company that was a model citizen for the first 30 years, but then during the last 10 years he embezzled millions of dollars and was finally caught. Do you decide 20 years after he was fired to ignore the embezzlement and give him a gold watch for his retirement?

Gold watches are given by companies to former employees, not by industries as a whole.

You then took it as an embezzler being released from prison not getting any job. My analogy was with the original company (MLB), which includes all the teams in MLB, all the minor-league teams owned by the MLB teams (affiliated), and working with MLB (agents). As I pointed out, he's gotten jobs around MLB (autographs, independent leagues, broadcasting), but not with MLB.

posted by grum@work at 10:42 AM on June 23

Grum has it exactly.

Pete Rose has benefited significantly since his expulsion from baseball because he's a former player. His records are still acknowledged widely. He makes a lot of money at it.

The only price he's paying currently is the people to whom he lied and cheated refuse to associate with him professionally in a way that earns him a place in the Hall of Fame or on a team. The idea that he's now an old man and deserves something when he's still denying the truth (and cowering behind a PR statement on his reinstatement) to me is wholly irrelevant.

He was aware of what happened to Shoeless Joe and did it anyways. Fuck him.

posted by dfleming at 11:10 AM on June 23

I didn't realize that evidence so critical could be kept off limits, unacknowledged, hidden from public view, and shuttled around between government bureaus like that. Even though the people keeping the documents hidden knew full well how useful they would be to an ongoing investigation. They could have redacted the documents to protect the third parties that they claim to be so concerned about.

The reasoning of the US Attorney's office for denying access to the material sounds and feels like discretionary nonsense. They were content to let the saga play out as it did without that evidence. So much time, effort, and bullshit wrangling could have been avoided.

I actually find it kind of refreshing that the government kept this under wraps as long as it did. If this investigation had happened today, it seems almost a certainty that there would have been a leak, as there was with the PED list that (to date) has provided the only evidence that David Ortiz, among others, was a PED user, and the leak of Barry Bonds' grand jury testimony (although the latter was leaked by a non-government attorney, who was duly punished).

Why should the government be compelled to assist a private (MLB) investigation? I get that it is a matter of public interest, but the fact that the government did not use its police powers to smear/impugn someone who was not a target of the investigation that secured the evidence at hand is surprising and welcome from my perspective.

posted by holden at 11:15 AM on June 23

His records are still acknowledged widely.

I feel like this is a very important point. MLB is not ignoring Rose or pretending he didn't exist, rather, they just do not want to celebrate a man who broke the cardinal rule by giving him a plaque in the hall of fame. I haven't been, but I suspect there are exhibits there with some of his memorabilia and such, and of course his hits record still stands, and I would say that that is an acceptable amount of recognition. MLB certainly doesn't owe him anything, particularly when he has repeatedly thumbed his nose at them.

posted by bender at 11:27 AM on June 23

The only price he's paying currently is the people to whom he lied and cheated refuse to associate with him professionally ...

You make it sound as if everyone affiliated with MLB wouldn't associate with Rose. They don't have the choice, so we don't know what some organization in baseball would do if the commissioner allowed it. The sport is big. Mark McGwire got coaching gigs eight years after the PED scandal sent him into hiding.

posted by rcade at 11:43 AM on June 23

You make it sound as if everyone affiliated with MLB wouldn't associate with Rose. They don't have the choice, so we don't know what some organization in baseball would do if the commissioner allowed it.

Professional associations hire people and give them powers to enforce the rules as a uniform body and not as a collective of individuals operating on their own rules. This is how things like bans from the game or sanctions on an owner/team can actually work. They give them the things they think are bigger than one owner or team's decisions to work on.

Those same associations have the opportunity to change those rules should they want to and have had ample opportunity to do so as a collective since Rose was banned. PED rules and penalties have been changed in recent memory.

The commissioner acts on their behalf - and from time to time, the ownership get directly involved. In the case of Marge Schott in 1993, it was a process engaged by the ownership that resulted in a owner-led committee voting to ban her from the game. Ditto for Steinbrenner. They can also toss a commissioner whose regulatory record they don't like.

The reverse for Pete Rose could be initiated by an owner (in response to a reinstatement request), however like anything related to the integrity of the game, it would need the broader support of the ownership to move forward.

Mark McGwire got coaching gigs eight years after the PED scandal sent him into hiding.

Mark McGwire did not receive a lifetime ban from baseball.

posted by dfleming at 12:29 PM on June 23

I haven't been, but I suspect there are exhibits there with some of his memorabilia

From what I understand, there are about 15-20 pieces of Rose memorabilia in the HOF (tied to the Big Red Machine, the hit record, games played record, etc.)

posted by grum@work at 12:57 PM on June 23

They don't have the choice, so we don't know what some organization in baseball would do if the commissioner allowed it.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that the Reds would welcome him home with open arms if MLB would allow them.

Heck, MLB has relented once already by letting him appear for the "All-Century" team moment during the 1999 All-Star game.

posted by grum@work at 01:07 PM on June 23

Mark McGwire did not receive a lifetime ban from baseball.

I didn't say he did. I cited him as an example of someone who got hired despite a large portion of baseball considering him an ignominious figure.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that the Reds would welcome him home with open arms if MLB would allow them.

I agree. The Reds should be allowed to do that. It also would be smart for Manfred to reinstate him so that the Rose scandal can fade into history.

posted by rcade at 01:37 PM on June 23

They should be allowed to do this. It would be smart for Manfred to reinstate him so that the Rose scandal can fade into history.

It would be even smarter NOT to do this so the Rose scandal NEVER fades into history. You want future players/managers/personnel to NEVER forget about the punishment for breaking the rule.

posted by grum@work at 01:39 PM on June 23

I think baseball players and other personnel can manage to understand the seriousness of a rule without punishing Rose for another quarter century or two -- maybe he'll live past 100 and we'll have this debate again in 2040 when another document drops.

Since you think the idea of Rose's family seeking reinstatement after his death is something to snicker about, the chance we'll see eye to eye on this is close to zero.

posted by rcade at 01:47 PM on June 23

Rcade, why do you feel that it is important that Pete Rose be reinstated by MLB?

posted by bender at 02:45 PM on June 23

As a general rule I think it's important that punishment be proportionate to the crime, proportionate to other punishments and tempered with mercy.

Why do you feel it is important that he be banned for 27 years instead of 26? 36 instead of 26? His entire lifespan plus one day? What interest hasn't already been served that will be served with more time?

posted by rcade at 03:34 PM on June 23

But what does reinstatement do for the game of baseball or the league other than undercut the punishment that is codified in the league's bylaws and agreed to by Rose? The league has every right to say that gambling on games in which you are involved is an act that will block you from induction into the hall of fame. Furthermore, his subsequent and continued lying about it at the very least would give pause to allowing him access within an organization.

As has been said, he has and still does make a lot of money off of baseball. It is not like the ban is a prison sentence, denying him his freedom. In effect, it has only truncated his managerial career and kept him out of the hall of fame. If they let him in now, what difference did it make if he was inducted into the hall of fame 25 years ago or now? He broke the game's most important rule. He doesn't need to be celebrated by being put in the hall of fame.

posted by bender at 04:33 PM on June 23

Since you think the idea of Rose's family seeking reinstatement after his death is something to snicker about, the chance we'll see eye to eye on this is close to zero.

My snicker was about the idea that the Veteran's Committee would even THINK about voting him into the HOF, regardless of his status on this mortal coil. Other than a couple of hold outs (like Mike Schmidt, former teammates), his contemporaries have made it clear that he wouldn't get voted in if the time ever came.

can manage to understand the seriousness of a rule without punishing Rose for another quarter century or two

Then why is it a lifetime ban? It was known to players before Rose went and broke the rules. The impetus should be on those to explain why a previously established rule should be changed, not why an existing rule should be enforced.

What interest hasn't already been served that will be served with more time?

"Lifetime ban" doesn't really mean much if you don't actually enforce it for a lifetime.

Pete Rose is the shining example of how serious that rule really is to MLB. One of the stars of the game is ostracized because he broke that rule. Everyone sees that the MLB means business about players betting on baseball. The moment they cut that sentence, it sends the message to everyone "Okay, we don't think it's REALLY important any more."

posted by grum@work at 04:37 PM on June 23

Why do you feel it is important that he be banned for 27 years instead of 26? 36 instead of 26? His entire lifespan plus one day? What interest hasn't already been served that will be served with more time?

Because I don't feel confident that Pete Rose, in a team position, will not bet on baseball. I don't know why you are so confident these are past problems.

The reason I have significant doubt? He is still trying to cover up the extent of his previous problems. He is still not truthful. His remorse has entirely been related to how much he gets caught. All classic addict signs.

Ignoring the fact it's apples to oranges - your example of Mark McGwire is again irrelevant because can't take PEDs and play anymore. Pete Rose can certainly be hired by a team and put in a position that he can use to improve his odds.

posted by dfleming at 05:01 PM on June 23

Then why is it a lifetime ban?

It isn't. If you don't believe me, ask Rob Manfred, who said in May he'd consider reinstatement.

Everybody knew from day one the lifetime ban would be open to reconsideration later, so to harp on the word "lifetime" the way you're doing is to cling to a fiction.

Manfred didn't pretend that "lifetime" has to mean "lifetime." Maybe you shouldn't either.

The moment they cut that sentence, it sends the message to everyone "Okay, we don't think it's REALLY important any more."

You're like the tough-on-crime Republican on a parole board who declares that if anyone is ever paroled, it means the crime they committed is now OK. No, that's not the message it sends to show mercy. The message is that sometimes enough is enough.

If Rose was reinstated today, any player considering betting on games would know that he could get a 26-year ban. That's hardly sending the message it is OK to bet on the game.

He is still trying to cover up the extent of his previous problems. He is still not truthful. His remorse has entirely been related to how much he gets caught.

I knew we'd eventually get around to this -- if Rose would just admit everything, we'd consider lifting the ban!

That's a Charlie Brown and the football scenario, and danging it out there when you're so adamant about continuing the ban is not serious. Be honest, Lucy. Any admission Rose made would be thrown into the pile of reasons to justify dragging this all the way to his grave.

... your example of Mark McGwire is again irrelevant because can't take PEDs and play anymore ...

No, he can't, but he has a lot of how-to advice he could offer on PED use to young players if he were, say, a coach. Ban him for life! Show no mercy! The sacred honor of baseball demands it!

posted by rcade at 05:57 PM on June 23

That's a Charlie Brown and the football scenario, and danging it out there when you're so adamant about continuing the ban is not serious. Be honest, Lucy. Any admission Rose made would be thrown into the pile of reasons to justify dragging this all the way to his grave.

No - I am being given yet another reason to believe Pete Rose's issues with gambling can not be taken as a guaranteed past tense problem. He's copped to as little as he can in an attempt to improve his likelihood to get reinstated and he's gotten caught at it.

Cutting through all your hyperbole - do you seriously think a still lying Pete Rose can be trusted not to gamble on baseball if he's back in a dugout or in a front office? What has he done to give you that indication, other than more time than you think is appropriate has passed?

posted by dfleming at 06:40 PM on June 23

I don't need more indication. Twenty six years have passed. If Rose goes before Manfred and the commissioner is satisfied with how he talks about himself and his future plans, that's enough for me.

I find it hard to believe that anything Rose could say today would be accepted by Rose critics as a reason to trust him in the future.

In 2010, Rose was at a roast held in his honor attended by many of his Reds teammates that coincided with the 25th anniversary of his 4,192nd hit. Press accounts indicate that he took the stage, openly wept and acknowledged that he "disrespected baseball." He apologized to Tony Perez and other Reds and said, "I guarantee everyone in this room I will never disrespect you again. I love the fans, I love the game of baseball, and I love Cincinnati baseball."

So there's your public act of contrition and a heartfelt pledge for future sterling conduct. That was enough to convince you, right?

posted by rcade at 07:54 PM on June 23

I find it hard to believe that anything Rose could say today would be accepted by Rose critics as a reason to trust him in the future.

For the record, I was in the camp of letting him back into baseball until we found out in this latest report that he's lying about betting on games as a player. He is still disrespecting baseball. That is, arguably the worst possible way for him to violate this rule - or at least on par with his manager bets. This is a pattern of behaviour over years, some of which he wasn't going to be honest about with the commissioner. So no - with this new evidence, I don't trust him.

I don't know why you're positioning yourself as the only voice of reason here - my position changed with new evidence coming forward that he's still lying. Yours seems to be unfazed by anything except how long his lifetime ban has been.

posted by dfleming at 09:27 PM on June 23

For the record, I was in the camp of letting him back into baseball until we found out in this latest report that he's lying about betting on games as a player.

The investigator for baseball in 1989, John Dowd, heard testimony from a bookie who said Rose bet on baseball when he played. Dowd's report concluded that Rose, as a player-manager and as a manager, bet on baseball from 1985 to 1987, including 52 times on the Reds to win. In his 2004 autobiography, My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted betting on baseball when he was a player-manager.

All we have that's new here is corroborating documentation for something that was already known and factored into Rose's punishment.

Yours seems to be unfazed by anything except how long his lifetime ban has been.

Bingo. But I'm not claiming to be the voice of reason. I don't think banning him forever is unreasonable. I just think it's wrong.

Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and two other players participated in fixing a Tigers-Indians game at the end of the 1919 season and Cobb arranged to bet $2,000 on it ($27,000 in today's money), according to columnist Jerome Holtzman in 1989. Evidence was presented to Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis eight years later, but he let the inquiry drop.

Fixing a game is worse than betting on your own team to win, I'd suggest.

Yet Cobb and Speaker are both in the Hall.

posted by rcade at 10:15 PM on June 23

If you don't believe me, ask Rob Manfred, who said in May he'd consider reinstatement.

Oh, I see you've fallen victim to Manfred's tactic of not taking a stance on anything that is ever put in front of him, regardless of of how silly it might sound. It's a great move by him as it keeps his critics on both sides at bay, since "considering" means both "I might do it" and "I might not do it", without committing to anything.

Here are all the things Rob Manferd is "considering":

Pete Rose reinstatement
shorter schedule
team in Montreal
DH for both leagues
modifying the strike zone
eliminating the defensive shifts

What do you the chances are that he follows through with ANY of those changes in the next 5 years?

That's a Charlie Brown and the football scenario, and danging it out there when you're so adamant about continuing the ban is not serious. Be honest, Lucy. Any admission Rose made would be thrown into the pile of reasons to justify dragging this all the way to his grave.

Well, I don't think Pete Rose can "admit" to anything else at this point, so it doesn't matter anymore.

Every other time he seems to admit to something, it's either because someone has provided proof that he was previously lying, or he can make money off it (with a book).

Besides, he's walked himself right to the edge of the pier, and doesn't have any more room to go. What is left for him to admit? I provided the list at the beginning of this thread about all the previous lies that have been exposed. There is only one more to go, and if he admits that one then of course there is no chance of ever being reinstated, so there isn't any point in admitting it.

However, if he admitted at the beginning to everything he conceded to at this point, then maybe he'd have a much better case to plead to the commissioner.

Finally, Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from MLB. I'm not sure why that agreement should be rescinded just because he's had a change of heart.

posted by grum@work at 10:22 PM on June 23

In his 2004 autobiography, My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted betting on baseball when he was a player-manager.

Are you sure about this?

Then please explain this for me:

In an interview Thursday [April 23, 2015] with Michael Kay on ESPN NY 98.7 FM, Rose reiterated that he did not bet on baseball when he was a player.

John Dowd, who led the original investigation, responded to Rose's Thursday claims by saying Rose is lying.

"He bet when he was a player-manager in '85-'86 and the proof is from Ron Peters in the report," Dowd told Outside the Lines' William Weinbaum, "and there is more evidence from others and from gambling records. It's all right there that he bet as a player-manager."

"That's the way Pete is. He knows the truth and he lied about it in his book," Dowd added.

He was lying right up until 2 months before he got caught in his lies.

Again.

posted by grum@work at 10:36 PM on June 23

So there's your public act of contrition and a heartfelt pledge for future sterling conduct. That was enough to convince you, right?

And he followed up that sterling conduct by still lying about it 5 years later.

Yawn.

posted by grum@work at 10:39 PM on June 23

However, if he admitted at the beginning to everything he conceded to at this point, then maybe he'd have a much better case to plead to the commissioner.

Of course. But I tire of suggestions on how Rose could solve his present circumstance through time travel and/or being less of an asshole. What's the point? I've never said Rose did nothing to contribute to the length of his "lifetime" ban.

Are you sure about this?

Rose was a player-manager from 1984 to 1986 and manager from 1987 to 1989. In his book he admitted to betting on the Reds to win frequently while he was manager in 1987, but he also admits that it began earlier than that:

I can't honestly remember the first time I bet on baseball. But I can remember the first time I spoke openly about it. I was sitting in my living room, watching the 1986 playoffs between the Mets and the Astros. I had a group of friends over for the game -- just like I'd done my whole life. Paul Janszen, a friend of Gio's from the gym, heard me talking about the score and asked me a question about gambling on baseball. Without even thinking about the consequences, I said, "Betting on the playoffs makes the games more exciting to watch!"
My assumption is that Rose's denials of betting on baseball as a player are general statements about 1983 and earlier -- when he was just a player -- and there's some fuzziness about 1984 to 1986 when he was a player-manager.

Dowd is expecting lawyerly precision from Rose when he interprets Rose's "I did not bet on baseball as a player" to mean "as a player or player-manager," and this furthers Dowd's attempt to portray Rose as an unrepentant liar. (You're doing the same here in how you interpret his 2015 comment.) But Rose says in his book that bets were made earlier than the 1986 postseason, so he's making an implicit admission there to betting in 1986, at least.

Rose also says in the book he came clean to Commissioner Bud Selig in 2002, recounting the exchange with these quotes:

Rose: Sir, my daddy taught me two things in life -- how to play baseball and how to take responsibility for my actions. I learned the first one pretty well. The other, I've had some trouble with. Yes, sir, I did bet on baseball.

Selig: How often?

Rose: Four or five times a week. But I never bet against my own team and I never made bets from the clubhouse.

Selig: Why?

Rose: I didn't think I'd get caught. I just thought that I would win every game I managed. I was looking for some extra excitement.

ESPN's new document drop reports something that was already implicitly admitted in Rose's mea-culpa memoir: Bets were made in the 1986 season when he was a player-manager.

posted by rcade at 11:30 PM on June 23

As an aside, it would be ironic if Rose betting as a player hurt him more than Rose betting as a manager. A manager betting on his own team to win is worse than a player doing the same thing. A manager could do things to win a game he bet on that hurt his team's chances in future games, such as burning through relievers like there's no tomorrow.

A player betting on himself to win would do the same things he does any other time, unless you think a player would play harder with a bet on the line and be more likely to risk injury. But Rose was famous for hustle all the time.

It's a severe violation of the rules either way, but a manager betting on his team is clearly the worse offense.

posted by rcade at 11:39 PM on June 23

Oh, I see you've fallen victim to Manfred's tactic of not taking a stance on anything that is ever put in front of him, regardless of of how silly it might sound.

Manfred didn't just pay lip service to the idea of reinstating Rose. He reviewed documents related to the ban, arranged to meet Rose sometime in July after the All-Star Game in Cincinnati, allowed Rose to participate in All-Star Game festivities and "didn't nix Rose's new analyst job with Fox Sports," per Jon Heyman of CBS Sports.

It doesn't sound like Manfred was being glib when he opened the door to Rose's reinstatement. The new commish was seriously entertaining the idea, which is no doubt why somebody broke the law and leaked documents under court-ordered seal to throw a wrench into it.

posted by rcade at 11:44 PM on June 23

Dowd is expecting lawyerly precision from Rose when he interprets Rose's "I did not bet on baseball as a player" to mean "as a player or player-manager," and this furthers Dowd's attempt to portray Rose as an unrepentant liar. (You're doing the same here in how you interpret his 2015 comment.) But Rose says in his book that bets were made earlier than the 1986 postseason, so he's making an implicit admission there to betting in 1986, at least.

I'm sorry, but a favourable interpretation vs. what Rose actually said is not very convincing. He said specifically he did not bet on baseball as a player and I find it extremely unlikely that Rose does not remember his player-manager days as him playing the game.

The hit record was broken when he was a player-manager, and is something baseball has allowed him to commemorate with the team. He would have to have forgotten that hit occurred while he was a player for that logic to make any sense.

Also - Pete Rose has a lawyer handling his reinstatement. His post-report "no comment" statement was made by his lawyer. The statement did not include "Pete Rose already admitted to this." This is not Charlie Hustle in the commissioner's office and doing interviews without coaching and it is not expecting lawyerly precision to expect a definitive statement that you did not do something.

posted by dfleming at 07:37 AM on June 24

I think it would be for the best if he is promised reinstatement the day after he dies. Then he can be inducted posthumously to the Hall. No reward in this life for cheating, but his legacy is eventually honored. Problem solved.

That way if he really wants to be reinstated sooner rather than later, he has options.

posted by Hugh Janus at 08:58 AM on June 24

He said specifically he did not bet on baseball as a player and I find it extremely unlikely that Rose does not remember his player-manager days as him playing the game.

Does Rose strike you as a person who speaks with precision and self-knowledge about himself all the time? I was challenged to document where Rose admitted to betting as a player-manager and I think I've done so for 1986.

Rose was an All-Star as a player through 1982 and played 151 games in 1983 with the Phillies. He was traded from the Expos to the Reds on August 15, 1984, and hired to be player-manager the same day. He talks in his book about gambling being something he chased for excitement as a manager when the thrill of playing was no longer enough.

The scenario that looks the most likely to me, in terms of what he's said and what we've known since Dowd, is that he began compulsively gambling on the Reds to win somewhere between August 1984 to 1986.

As to when that began, he started himself 110 games in 1985 and was named an All-Star that year, chasing the all-time hit record until getting 4,192 on Sept. 11, 1985. I imagine that pursuit was his major preoccupation -- it certainly was mine during the season. He wouldn't need to be finding extra reasons to be excited.

With that over, he turned 45 on April 14 as the 1986 season began and started 61 games (career low), hitting .219 (career low). Here's an analysis of his play that season.

He admits in his book that he gambled before the 1986 post-season, but doesn't know the date. He just knows he first spoke of doing it during that post-season. So there he is gambling sometime in 1986 when he's playing out the string and hitting like Mario Mendoza.

Are you really taking the position that you would have favored Rose for reinstatement if he wasn't still lying about betting on games as a player, even though he admitted in his book gambling as a player-manager in at least 1986, which is the year the new ESPN story documents?

In 2004, Rose appeared at a church in Royersford, Pennsylvania, and was interviewed by the senior pastor before a packed house about his actions. He said this:

It wasn't that I was calling somebody everyday and betting on the games. I told the guy before the season that I want to bet on my team every night a certain amount. No one in the clubhouse ever knew I was betting; no coaches, no players, no clubhouse guys, and I was wrong.

I was wrong. However, I wasn't betting when I was a player. It's when I became a manager because I had so much love and respect for my players because they were like my sons. I wanted to bet on them because I needed something extra because I wasn't getting the at-bats or playing in the field, and I was wrong.

When Rose says he started gambling "when I became a manager," do you think he meant "when I became a manager exclusively and was no longer a player-manager"? That seems like a strained interpretation to me -- but it's the one all over the media today. If anyone finds a contemporary media account that acknowledges Rose has said in the past he gambled as a player-manager, I'd love to see the link.

posted by rcade at 10:43 AM on June 24

When Rose says he started gambling "when I became a manager," do you think he meant "when I became a manager exclusively and was no longer a player-manager"? That seems like a strained interpretation to me -- but it's the one all over the media today. If anyone finds a contemporary media account that acknowledges Rose has said in the past he gambled as a player-manager, I'd love to see the link.

The problem is that Rose has a history of changing his story to fit the information that has come out. Maybe he did mean "player-manager" and shortened it to "manager", but given his extensive history of lying, I definitely won't be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

chasing the all-time hit record until getting 4,192 on Sept. 11, 1985. I imagine that pursuit was his major preoccupation -- it certainly was mine during the season.

Ah. This would help explain your point of view.

I was only 14 at the time, and more interested in the Blue Jays pursuit of their first playoff appearance. I was barely paying attention to the NL at the time, and Rose's run would have been a secondary/tertiary thing in my mind.

To me, Rose is an overrated historical figure for his records, and a creep because of his self-promotion (playing himself in pursuit of the records) and breaking "the cardinal rule". In fact, his appearances at WWE events and being an Arrested Development visual gag have a stronger positive resonance with me now.

posted by grum@work at 03:59 PM on June 24

Ah. This would help explain your point of view.

Rose was one of my childhood idols, but I supported the punishment at the time it was handed down and for years afterwards. But this 2004 SportsFilter thread shows I'm at least 11 years into thinking enough is enough.

Here's my take back then:

Rose's poor-me act is tiresome, but as I've said before, 15 years' banishment is a sufficient sentence for what he finally admits to doing. Baseball ought to respond to his admission by reinstating him. ... I don't agree with lifetime bans in sport.

posted by rcade at 04:38 PM on June 24

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.