PDA

View Full Version : Schmidt: Rose sunk by lack of remorse



savafan
03-01-2006, 12:44 PM
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/SPT0401/603010374/1072/SPT04

BY RONALD BLUM | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK - Mike Schmidt thinks Pete Rose's lack of remorse caused baseball commissioner Bud Selig not to reinstate the career hits leader.

Schmidt, who attended Rose's meeting with Selig in November 2002, details the session in his book "Clearing the Bases," published Wednesday by Harper Collins and due to be in stores by mid-March.

"Pete's confession lacked one major thing in Bud's mind: remorse," Schmidt wrote. "I spoke to Bud later, and he told me he got the confession he had expected, but not the expression of genuine remorse he had hoped for."

Schmidt and Rose were at the meeting along with Rose's manager, Warren Greene. Selig and Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, also attended the session in Milwaukee.

While the whole group sat in on the meeting initially, Rose and Selig also spoke one-on-one, when Rose confessed that he bet on the Cincinnati Reds while managing the team in the late 1980s. Rose agreed in 1989 to a lifetime ban from baseball and applied for reinstatement 1997. Selig has never ruled on the application.

Rose, Schmidt and Greene at first thought the meeting with Selig went well.

"Over lunch we talked some more about the initial press release, the national press conference, and the outline of the terms of the agreement, all of which would be followed up on in detail by Bob DuPuy in future meetings," Schmidt wrote. "Pete, Warren and I were very satisfied by Bud's preliminary reaction as we left for the airport. We thought a positive response from the commissioner was a lock."

But later, Schmidt began to wonder.

"About a year after the Milwaukee meeting, I phoned Bud to ask what was holding up his decision on Pete's reinstatement," Schmidt wrote. "Bud confided that he didn't think Pete understood the gravity of his commitment."

Then in January 2004, details of Rose's book, in which he admitted betting on the Reds, became public just before Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were elected to the Hall of Fame.

"The timing looked sleazy, really sleazy," wrote Schmidt, who blamed a friend of Rose's in Cincinnati for leaking details of Rose's admission ahead of the timing the publisher set in agreements with ABC and Sports Illustrated.

"Personally, I think the timing and manner of the book's release, given that it overshadowed the New York Hall of Fame news conference, sealed Pete's safe," Schmidt wrote. "For some reason, the commissioner wants to keep Pete on permanent hold."

Schmidt thinks Rose should join him in the Hall of Fame. Rose's eligibility to appear on the Baseball Writers' Association of America ballot expired with the 2006 vote.

"What about Pete? He's a beaten man. He understands he'll probably never be inducted into the Hall of Fame," Schmidt wrote. "He understands he'll almost certainly never be allowed to return to baseball in any capacity."

But Schmidt would put one restriction on Rose as part of a reinstatement.

"I don't think Pete should be allowed to manage in the major leagues," he wrote. "He committed his offense against the game while he was a manager; not being able to return to such a position would be a fair penalty. Otherwise, Pete should be reinstated, placed on the Hall of Fame ballot for consideration by the Veterans Committee."

Dom Heffner
03-01-2006, 02:31 PM
If Pete would have come in crying and apologizing, he still didn't stand a chance. The rule against gambling doesn't say anything about being remorseful.

He should have kept his mouth shut.

flyer85
03-01-2006, 02:36 PM
He should have kept his mouth shut.He should have done his mea culpa(admitting gamblng, not on baseball) to Peter Ueberroth and would have gotten off with a suspension of a year or less and no investigation would have ever happened. Pete has no one to blame but himself.

Maldonado
03-01-2006, 03:35 PM
Pete was way to late in coming clean. 14 years of lying, then it's all of the sudden OK that he was lying for 14 years? Gambling has never hurt Pete Rose more than his hubris.

BoydsOfSummer
03-01-2006, 03:35 PM
Ego and pride sprung a leak in that boat also.

Maldonado
03-01-2006, 03:42 PM
"Ego and pride sprung a leak in that boat also."

Is there anymore of a total waste in MLB than Pete Rose? Even more than Dwight Gooden I think.

Heath
03-01-2006, 03:46 PM
I think the Gooden/Rose scenario is two different things.

I don't think Pete gambled heavily until he managed and wasn't playing anymore.

Doc Gooden wiped out the prime of his career due to drug addictions.

westofyou
03-01-2006, 04:12 PM
I don't think Pete gambled heavily until he managed and wasn't playing anymore. Yet the Reds pondered out loud that giving Rose a LT contract in 1978 could be the wrong move, according to an article in the Post in 1989 Wagner commented to the other owners "Pete's legs may get broken when his playing dasy are over."

Even Giles over at the Phillies was surprised by the level of Roses' gambling when he came over to the Phillies, "I knew he was using bookies, not directly, but through friends."

vaticanplum
03-01-2006, 04:13 PM
Rose agreed in 1989 to a lifetime ban from baseball and applied for reinstatement 1997. Selig has never ruled on the application.

Ok, I admit I've never gotten too bogged down in the details of Pete Rose's legal troubles...isn't there some kind of time limit on this? Or is Selig just allowed to take however long he wants? It certainly appears unlikely that Rose will ever be reinstated at least under Selig, so at this point why doesn't he just rule no and be done with it? Why is it still unprocessed?

WMR
03-01-2006, 04:18 PM
Has anyone seen the ESPN movie "Hustle"?? I thought that movie pretty much hit the nail on the head concerning their portrayal of Rose.

Tom Sizemore was masterful as Rose.

Little Alex
03-01-2006, 04:28 PM
Yes Pete has character issues and he broke the law.

But if we took out everyone in the Hall of Fame that meets those characteristics... bye bye Babe, adios Cobb, and a slew of others.

I never understood why this was such a big deal. If he was betting AGAINST the Reds while managing, then I could see the problem. Rape, murder, heck, even prostitute solicitation, I can understand the severity of those. But a LIFETIME BAN for betting for the team you manage?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand. Yes he is a jerk. Yes he broke the rules. But a lifetime ban? The only way that makes sense to me is if they were to do a "house cleaning" of the Hall of Fame and remove anyone else who broke the law or was a scumbag.

Chip R
03-01-2006, 04:32 PM
Has anyone seen the ESPN movie "Hustle"?? I thought that movie pretty much hit the nail on the head concerning their portrayal of Rose.

Tom Sizemore was masterful as Rose.

I don't think he was that good, personally. He had none of the charisma that Pete had. Watching that movie you wonder why anyone would be one of his acolytes much less why he was one of the most popular figures in the game. Sizemore played him as more of a charicature of Pete than anything. I know it was an ESPN movie and the budget wasn't exactly huge but I don't think Sizemore did a very good job at all.

westofyou
03-01-2006, 04:33 PM
I never understood why this was such a big deal.

Yes he broke the rules.

Rule 21

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.


Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


LIFETIME BAN for betting for the team you manage?

Seems pretty simple

WMR
03-01-2006, 04:40 PM
I don't think he was that good, personally. He had none of the charisma that Pete had. Watching that movie you wonder why anyone would be one of his acolytes much less why he was one of the most popular figures in the game. Sizemore played him as more of a charicature of Pete than anything. I know it was an ESPN movie and the budget wasn't exactly huge but I don't think Sizemore did a very good job at all.

Wow... really? Perhaps I'm a bit biased b/c Sizemore is one of my favorite actors... I thought he did a good job of playing Pete.

Cyclone792
03-01-2006, 04:53 PM
Yes Pete has character issues and he broke the law.

But if we took out everyone in the Hall of Fame that meets those characteristics... bye bye Babe, adios Cobb, and a slew of others.

I never understood why this was such a big deal. If he was betting AGAINST the Reds while managing, then I could see the problem. Rape, murder, heck, even prostitute solicitation, I can understand the severity of those. But a LIFETIME BAN for betting for the team you manage?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand. Yes he is a jerk. Yes he broke the rules. But a lifetime ban? The only way that makes sense to me is if they were to do a "house cleaning" of the Hall of Fame and remove anyone else who broke the law or was a scumbag.

Rose bet on the game; it's the ultimate crime in baseball and rightfully so. The chances of him ever being reinstated during any of our lifetimes is somewhere between 0 and 1 percent, and it's much closer to the former. That's exactly the way it should be too.

At least with Joe Jackson some logical, well-reasoned and highly researched arguments can be made that he's possibly not guilty and/or the victim of a Comiskey cover-up, but he's still been banned for over 85 years now.

Chip R
03-01-2006, 05:06 PM
Wow... really? Perhaps I'm a bit biased b/c Sizemore is one of my favorite actors... I thought he did a good job of playing Pete.

Sizemore is a good actor. Perhaps Bogdonovich didn't give him the proper direction. I thought PB was an odd choice as a director for that movie. It's only my opinion and I don't think ESPN was going to bring in Scorcese and DeNiro in but it could have been better all around.

But Pete is a complicated guy to play. Back in the early 70s they made a TV movie on Vince Lombardi. Ernest Borgnine played Lombardi. One of the old Packers said that Borgnine did a great job but he didn't quite get the nuances that made him who he was. Believe me, I'm not one of those people who thinks of Pete as a deity but I didn't see Pete Rose on that screen. I saw a poor imitation of him.

SeeinRed
03-01-2006, 05:53 PM
There are two sides to this argument. For one, Rose broke a rule he knew existed and the concequences of breaking that rule are very clear. On the other hand, is gambling really a bad enough problem in baseball that one offense can mean your out of the game for life?

I tend to think that if you give guys who use drugs or use steroids more than one chance, how can you say if you gamble, you don't deserve another chance? Especially when you consider that drugs addiction is a disease that needs treatment, much like a gambling addiction, which Pete clearly had. Then you consider that steroids are just down right cheating, but if you use steroids, you still get more than one chance.

From most of the statements, I believe that most people think that the issue is Pete's character. People don't like his ego mostly. Just for fun, compare Barry Bonds' ego to that of Rose. Bonds makes Rose look humble, and while I conceed that Bonds is the better player, do you think there will be any way Bonds doesn't get in the Hall. You elect the BASEBALL PLAYER, not the person. Look at some of the people already in the HOF. On the other side of that, Sean Casey, the nicest guy in baseball, will never be in the HOF. Most of you will agree with that.

Do I think that Rose should be allowed to manage again? I don't know, but I do think he deserves another chance. Everyone deserves a second chance in my opinion. But that is just ideology at work. Everyone makes mistakes, and Professional Atheletes are no different, they are not Gods like society tends to think.

Little Alex
03-01-2006, 08:32 PM
So you dock me rep points for stating my opinion?

Gee from now on I'll just agree with everyone. That'll be boring as heck, but hey... wouldn't want to DISAGREE in an earnest, good natured debate, only to be PUNISHED without me being able to do anything about it.

Lame, Martyfan. Really lame.


Fine. Pete should be banned forever because no one else in the Hall right now has ever broken the rules. Jerk.

4256 Hits
03-01-2006, 10:49 PM
Yes Pete has character issues and he broke the law.

But if we took out everyone in the Hall of Fame that meets those characteristics... bye bye Babe, adios Cobb, and a slew of others.

I never understood why this was such a big deal. If he was betting AGAINST the Reds while managing, then I could see the problem. Rape, murder, heck, even prostitute solicitation, I can understand the severity of those. But a LIFETIME BAN for betting for the team you manage?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand. Yes he is a jerk. Yes he broke the rules. But a lifetime ban? The only way that makes sense to me is if they were to do a "house cleaning" of the Hall of Fame and remove anyone else who broke the law or was a scumbag.

I agree, it just odd that there is the same penalty for someone that takes money to throw a game as someone that bets on his team to win. I personally would mind if the every Reds player bet on them to win every night. My understanding around the turn of the century it was common for players to bet the other team on the game.

Saying that if you can't do the time don't do the crime. But my problem is that when he did the "crime" the "time" didn't include not being eligible to for the HOF.

The real question is why can't Bud just make a decision (which I am sure would be no) there is no reason to to even respond to the request.

RedsBaron
03-02-2006, 08:09 AM
I sometimes give Rose back handed "credit" for not showing remorse. Pete really didn't show much remorse, and I believe it may be because he doesn't have any remorse. He appears to be sorry he got caught rather than being sorry for what he did. I guess his lack of pretending to be remorseful is honesty of sorts.

oneupper
03-02-2006, 09:13 AM
ROSE dug his own grave with his actions and slammed shut any chance of reinstatement by confessing.

Is the punishment too harsh? Perhaps. But such is the law.

ROSE got what was coming to him, whether it was what he deserved is another issue.

savafan
03-02-2006, 11:31 AM
At least with Joe Jackson some logical, well-reasoned and highly researched arguments can be made that he's possibly not guilty and/or the victim of a Comiskey cover-up, but he's still been banned for over 85 years now.

Actually, Joe Jackson isn't still banned, seeing as how it was a lifetime ban, and he's well past expired.

registerthis
03-02-2006, 11:40 AM
ROSE dug his own grave with his actions and slammed shut any chance of reinstatement by confessing.

Is the punishment too harsh? Perhaps. But such is the law.

Except for the fact that lifetime HoF banishment WASN'T the law when Pete was suspended. Call it the Pete Rose Rule, if you will.

savafan
03-02-2006, 11:46 AM
Except for the fact that lifetime HoF banishment WASN'T the law when Pete was suspended. Call it the Pete Rose Rule, if you will.

And blame Fay Vincent for it. Both he, as well as Selig, have somewhat of a vendetta against Pete due to the death of Bart Giammati. They should ban cigarettes from baseball for life as well if they were to be honest with themselves.

westofyou
03-02-2006, 11:52 AM
And blame Fay Vincent for it. Both he, as well as Selig, have somewhat of a vendetta against Pete due to the death of Bart Giammati. They should ban cigarettes from baseball for life as well if they were to be honest with themselves.
Yeah, it's just about Giammati.....

Pluuuleeassssssss.... They believe they are actually are protecting the game, both fancy themselves as keepers of the games integrity. Is it true? Who knows, check back in 50 years.

Pete on the other hand can't claim the same thing... not by any measurement.

Cyclone792
03-02-2006, 12:02 PM
Actually, Joe Jackson isn't still banned, seeing as how it was a lifetime ban, and he's well past expired.

It's a point of contention made by some Jackson supporters (it was Ted Williams' main argument, I believe), but as far as I know the list is technically called "permanently ineligible," which would extend beyond the death of a player.

savafan
03-02-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm not saying that it is all about Giammati, but those who were close to the situation at the time have said that Vincent and Giammati were good friends, and that Vincent blamed Pete for Bart's death.

flyer85
03-02-2006, 12:56 PM
I don't think Pete would have ever signed the agreement if he knew
1) Baseball would change the HOF eligibility rules to keep him off the ballot
2) That Bart would stand up in the press conference about the agreement and say he thought Rose bet on baseball.

I think Pete thought he could get back in the game in a year or two and I have read(Lords of the Realm??) where supposedly there were talks where baseball was offering a 5 year suspension but Rose and his really dumb advisers chose the agreement they signed.

A sad story but Pete can't blame anyone other than himself. Heck I've never believed Pete all these years when he said he really didn't care about the HOF, he just wanted back on the field. I have always believed the exact opposite, that the HOF is the most important thing to Pete.

savafan
03-02-2006, 01:06 PM
Heck I've never believed Pete all these years when he said he really didn't care about the HOF, he just wanted back on the field. I have always believed the exact opposite, that the HOF is the most important thing to Pete.
I agree, but Pete's pride won't let him say that.