Discussion from today:
Even if he only bet on his team to win, the days he didn’t place a bet might have been assumed by bookmakers to mean that he knew his team was going to lose.
Interesting theory and it makes sense to me.
The facts are known, folks.
That’s the report from the Dowd commission that examined every aspect of Pete Rose’s involvement with gambling on baseball.
Notable quotes from the agreement:
“Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise.”
Now it also concludes that Rose didn’t admit to anything at all. But that’s one hell of an agreement to sign if you think you’re innocent.
Pete Rose also lied under oath about his betting on baseball. From the summary:
“As detailed more extensively herein, Pete Rose has denied under oath ever betting on Major League Baseball or associating with anyone who bet on Major League Baseball. However, the investigation has developed evidence to the contrary. The testimony and documentary evidence gathered in the course of the investigation demonstrates that Pete Rose bet on baseball, and in particular, on games of the Cincinnati Reds Baseball Club, during the 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons.”
NOTE: Pete Rose was both manager and PLAYER in 1985 and 1986. So the argument that he wasn’t on the field doesn’t hold up.
In short, Rose bet on baseball games. He bet on his own team. He consistently lied about it, both under oath and otherwise. Not only did he do so but he conspired with gamblers and bookmakers to hide his activities. Many checks for his losses were sent to Micheal Bertolini and others and these checks were made out to fictitious payees to hide his activities.
In the 1987 season there is much evidence that Rose placed bets through Paul Janszen on baseball. Evidence such as taped phoen conversations, betting records from Rose’s home, and others. Rose consistently denied it at the time.
In short, Rose is a lying bastard who would lie and cheat to get reinstated. There is, simply, no means by which anyone could determine that any repentance on his part would be real. No means at all.
Nope. Election into the hall by the writers has to happen within 20 years of retirement. Rose retired as a player in 1986. His vote would go through the Veterans Committee.
Even if Rose is reinstated, he is not eligible by the BBWAA due to the following rule:
Many think each player is entitled to 15 years on the ballot. Not so. A player retires 5 years, then he has the period of 15 years until he has no longer played in the past 20 years. Rose last played in 1986, so he’s done. If Darryl Kile, for example, had been a Gil Hodges like candidate, he could have been on the ballot for more than 15 years (due to the provision that a player dying becomes eligible six months from his death.)
Unless MLB makes a special exception for Rose, the BBWAA won’t see his name on the ballot. That puts it up to the Veterans Committee, which can be scary no matter which side of the fence you are on.
Ah-hah! So for all we know, all Rose did was associate with someone who, at one time or another, happened to lay five bucks on a game. Foul, I cry! Foul!
Ok, ok…I know, I’m just funnin’…
Thanks for the correction.
The Veterans Committee now looks to be an old boys club, literally. The members are all HOF players themselves.
I suppose if he does become eligible, he’ll get in, because even with its limited importance and power the veterans’ committee is still going to be an old boys’ club. And yes, the idea of Rose being reinstated in any way is galling. He doesn’t deserve it and lied and lied about it for about 20 years - and when he did come clean it was only to sell a book. Baseball shouldn’t indulge him.
It’s a lifetime ban, right; will he be eligible once he’s dead?
He would need to be pulled off the ‘ineligible list’ to be considered. That doesn’t end with death. I believe Joe Jackson is STILL on the list. Heck, most of the Black Sox are still on the list.
Hmm. It’s longer than I thought…
Holy crap. Mantle was on the banned list at one time? How the hell have I never heard of that?
Those two I knew about. They associated with gamblers by working for a casino and out they went.
Didn’t keep them from the Hall of Fame, though. That rule was passed in 1991.
It’s a bad enough offense to keep him banned from the sport forever, but it’s ok to grant him baseball’s greatest honor? I’m missing the logic. I’m thinking that putting him is would make a mockery of the Hall.
Selig is the owners’ rubber stamp.
At an Indie film fest this year in West Hollywood I saw a preview for a film on Pete Rose coming next summer called “4192.” What else? It only tells the story of his highlights on the field, NOT about the gambling. That’s where it ends. If Cooperstown could watch this, maybe they can push Selig.
I’ve been a Rose fan ever since I watched baseball. I have over 300 of his cards (lots of other players too) and watched him be a hero on the field to the Reds and Phillies.
I will agree that I also REALLY did not like how he handled the accusations or the punishment. He was immature about it and I lost faith in him as an individual, NEVER as one of the greatest to ever play.
That all said, fuck Selig. 4192, baby! (I’ll look for a link for the film 
.)
This, my friends, is the root cause of this problem. Bud Selig should not be responsible for who is and isn’t eligible for the HOF. His responsibility is MLB, and banning Rose was the right move, you cannot trust a gambler in a position of authority.
Because of this stupid rule by the BBWAA, he is pressured to reinstate someone who doesn’t deserve reinstatement, entirely over the HOF issue.
Being a lying dick and smearing someone who did honest work only qualifies as being “immature” in your book?
Pssst- how do YOU know Pete only bet on the Reds to win?
You have ONLY Pete Rose’s word for that. And Pete Rose lied through his teeth for 20 years, insisting he never bet on baseball, period.
How can you possibly take Pete’s word for it, when you KNOW he’s an unrepentant liar?
It isn’t up to the BBWAA anymore. His 15 years are up.
If Rose is reinstated, the HOF decision will be made by the Veterans Committee - now consisting of the Hall’s current members. And ya know, I can’t think of anyone else whose opinion matters nearly as much. It’s their game and their work he defiled, and therefore their forgiveness that matters.
Rose is over rated. His lifetime batting average was not special.(303). He beat Cobb by having a million at bats. But he did break the record and if his ego was not so large, he would have been in long ago. He insisted he did nothing wrong. But, the stories kept coming out ,one after another. He still lied. He was eventually broken down. He was forced to concede a few points, but still very grudgingly. Possibly the whole truth has not come out. Maybe it never will. But, if it does ,who expects it to come from Pete.
Baseball makes it clear how seriously they take gambling. Rose was well aware. He just figured it did not apply to him.
Maybe I don’t understand addictions well enough, but my understanding was that he didn’t really “figure” it at all. Gambling was just something he had to do, whether on baseball or the horses or whatever. To the extent he remembered the consequences of being caught, he just might have “figured” he wouldn’t be caught, and if he were, he was such a hero that he’d get away with it anyway.