PDA

View Full Version : Nice piece on Rose by Jayson Stark



cincrazy
08-24-2009, 02:23 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=4418586

Highlifeman21
08-24-2009, 02:41 PM
Pretty much sums up that Rose hasn't changed, and most likely never will change, and will forever be left on the outside looking in.

NJReds
08-24-2009, 02:48 PM
Dowd was on ESPN this a.m. (Mike & Mike). He said that they tried to work a deal with Rose before the Dowd Report became public. That they were going to try and present him the evidence to see if he'd fess up and make the necessary changes -- which would've kept him in baseball.

Dowd said Pete was open to the meeting but his handlers (lawyers?) shot it down.

It's a sad situtation, and I doubt Pete will ever see his name on a plaque in the HOF.

15fan
08-24-2009, 03:04 PM
"I still remember thinking how wrong it felt that the Hit King's career was coming to an end in a ballroom, not a ballpark."

"Two decades later, it still feels wrong. Not because Bart Giamatti made the wrong decision. Because Pete Rose made so many wrong choices to force the commissioner to make it."

...

"He's had so many chances to save himself. He just never knew how. He could never say the words he needed to say. He could never make the changes in his life he needed to make."

"He could never bring himself to do what seemed so obvious, even six years ago, when his buddies Mike Schmidt and Joe Morgan practically drew a dotted line for him to follow."

Bravo, Mr. Stark. :clap:

Col_ IN Reds fan
08-24-2009, 03:41 PM
Sounds like his lawyers gave him bad advise in the begining of the investigation. It is too bad for Pete that he did think he was invincible. I would love to see him in the HOF some day. I think a press conference and an apology would still go a long way. I am not defending his actions in any way, but baseball came easy (or seemed too) for Pete. His baseball related decisions were all good ones for him, unfortunenately his life decisions were terrible. Now having been able to look back at the last 20 years maybe he has changed. Explaining that he did things wrong from the begining of this and say he will do what it takes (no Vegas and no gambling) maybe he can gain support again. After all it has been 20 years. None the less his mistake was a big one.

Hoosier Red
08-24-2009, 03:59 PM
Something I recently thought of. I know Pete can't manage in any minor leagues or professional ball of any sort, but is there anything that keeps him from coaching high school or small college ball?

I mean part of the "whoa is Pete" claim has been that he's been kept from doing what he loved. Is it against the NCAA rules to hire him, or even NAIA or NJCAA?

15fan
08-24-2009, 04:07 PM
Something I recently thought of. I know Pete can't manage in any minor leagues or professional ball of any sort, but is there anything that keeps him from coaching high school or small college ball?

I mean part of the "whoa is Pete" claim has been that he's been kept from doing what he loved. Is it against the NCAA rules to hire him, or even NAIA or NJCAA?

Maybe Isiah Thomas could pull some strings and get him a gig at FIU.

TheNext44
08-24-2009, 04:11 PM
"I still remember thinking how wrong it felt that the Hit King's career was coming to an end in a ballroom, not a ballpark."

"Two decades later, it still feels wrong. Not because Bart Giamatti made the wrong decision. Because Pete Rose made so many wrong choices to force the commissioner to make it."

...

"He's had so many chances to save himself. He just never knew how. He could never say the words he needed to say. He could never make the changes in his life he needed to make."

"He could never bring himself to do what seemed so obvious, even six years ago, when his buddies Mike Schmidt and Joe Morgan practically drew a dotted line for him to follow."

Bravo, Mr. Stark. :clap:

Great article, very accurate, insightful and well written.

But I think it is clear that Bart did make the wrong decision also. Rose shares most of the blame, and could not have handle the whole ordeal worse, but if Giamatti was a smart commissioner, he never would have brought up the case in the first place.

Remember that Kuhn and Ueberroth both had the same information that Giamatti had and decided not to act on it, for the good of the game. Everyone knew that Rose had a gambling problem, even when he was playing. Going after Rose was the first thing Giamatti did as Commissioner. He clearly had an agenda, even it was just to achieve what he considered justice.

Allegedly, at first Giamatti called him Rose into his office and told him about the evidence he had and said that if Rose retired as manager, nothing would happen and he could stay in baseball, as long as he did not manage ever again. Rose reportedly told Giamatti that prosecuting him would be bad for the game of baseball, would lose too many fans, and practically dared him to do it. I believe I heard that the expression, "bigger than the game" came up.

Giamatti didn't blink, commissioned the Dowd report (which just was an official version of what they already knew) got the justice he wanted, but the game was damaged, and will never fully recover in my opinion. Rose was right on that account, even though he was in the wrong on nearly everything else.

A smart commissioner, with the best interests of the sport in mind, would never had brought this public. In fact, a really smart commissioner would have found ways to guarantee that this never became public. He would make sure that the "friends" who ratted out Rose were discredited, and not taken seriously.

If this was an epidemic, if there were many players betting on games, that would be different and require different action. But when it is isolated to just one star, actually one of the most popular stars of the game ever, it would be easy and wise to contain it, monitor it, and let it eventually fade away.

Again, nothing justifies nor forgives Rose for all his sins, but that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to crucify him.

flyer85
08-24-2009, 04:16 PM
Ueberroth both had the same information that Giamatti had and decided not to act on it, for the good of the game. Ueberroth started the ball rolling, it got handed off to Bart. Pete had the opportunity to come clean to Ueberroth, he chose to stonewall. At that time there were only inquiring about this betting at the track. If he would have came clean then and taken a fine and short suspension it is unlikely the Dowd report would have ever occurred.

Pete and his arrogance created the entire episode. Although it is likely the issue would have surfaced again.

George Anderson
08-24-2009, 04:39 PM
Something I recently thought of. I know Pete can't manage in any minor leagues or professional ball of any sort, but is there anything that keeps him from coaching high school or small college ball?



When the day comes that Pete can make as much money coaching HS or College as he does signing his name in Vegas then he will jump at the chance.

Pete loves baseball but IMO not as much as money.

vic715
08-24-2009, 04:43 PM
Great article, very accurate, insightful and well written.

But I think it is clear that Bart did make the wrong decision also. Rose shares most of the blame, and could not have handle the whole ordeal worse, but if Giamatti was a smart commissioner, he never would have brought up the case in the first place.

Remember that Kuhn and Ueberroth both had the same information that Giamatti had and decided not to act on it, for the good of the game. Everyone knew that Rose had a gambling problem, even when he was playing. Going after Rose was the first thing Giamatti did as Commissioner. He clearly had an agenda, even it was just to achieve what he considered justice.

Allegedly, at first Giamatti called him Rose into his office and told him about the evidence he had and said that if Rose retired as manager, nothing would happen and he could stay in baseball, as long as he did not manage ever again. Rose reportedly told Giamatti that prosecuting him would be bad for the game of baseball, would lose too many fans, and practically dared him to do it. I believe I heard that the expression, "bigger than the game" came up.

Giamatti didn't blink, commissioned the Dowd report (which just was an official version of what they already knew) got the justice he wanted, but the game was damaged, and will never fully recover in my opinion. Rose was right on that account, even though he was in the wrong on nearly everything else.

A smart commissioner, with the best interests of the sport in mind, would never had brought this public. In fact, a really smart commissioner would have found ways to guarantee that this never became public. He would make sure that the "friends" who ratted out Rose were discredited, and not taken seriously.

If this was an epidemic, if there were many players betting on games, that would be different and require different action. But when it is isolated to just one star, actually one of the most popular stars of the game ever, it would be easy and wise to contain it, monitor it, and let it eventually fade away.

Again, nothing justifies nor forgives Rose for all his sins, but that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to crucify him.

You may be right I know I read years ago that Landis swept things under the carpet when it came to guys like Ty cobb and Rogers Hornsby out of fear of what the negative publicity would due to the game.Remember back then the 1919 WS was still fresh on a lot of minds.

hebroncougar
08-24-2009, 04:47 PM
Again, nothing justifies nor forgives Rose for all his sins, but that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to crucify him.

Sorry, but Pete had chances to ensure he wasn't crucified. And the game of baseball hasn't suffered because of the scandal Rose caused (not Giamatti, Rose caused it). I loved Pete Rose, but he made his bed, now he gets to sleep in it, and is at the mercy of the Commissioner.

UKFlounder
08-24-2009, 05:08 PM
How was the game damaged, and what does it need to recover? It did not damage attendance, it did not kill the Reds off either with attendance or from a competitive standpoint, there has been no questioning of further gambling in baseball (perhaps a small incident with Dykstra, but no major game-changing scandals), nor any other real long-term effects from Pete's banishment.

If Pete claimed he was bigger than the game and his banishment would hurt the game, my belief would be that the past 2 decades have proven him wrong.


Great article, very accurate, insightful and well written.

Giamatti didn't blink, commissioned the Dowd report (which just was an official version of what they already knew) got the justice he wanted, but the game was damaged, and will never fully recover in my opinion. Rose was right on that account, even though he was in the wrong on nearly everything else.

westofyou
08-24-2009, 06:10 PM
In the 50's College Basketball almost went down because of betting

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/basketball_scandals_explosion.html

Prior to the 20's many baseball championships have a muddy background that betting might have been a factor, once the lockdown on that aspect came in the 20's the game exploded into the the sports monster it is now.

Pete's actions could have had an impact... if he wasn't caught, saying that nothing hasn't come from his suspension is missing the fact that once he was hung out to dry he essentially becomes the dead coyote that a rancher catches and hangs on his fence as message to the other coyotes (which I've seen numerous times) maybe it doesn't stop all the coyotes from killing sheep but it stops some and it states a clear message to those thinking of it.

Too bad that it was Pete that was caught, but not too bad that some action was taken against him, because from what I can see his behavior and the resulting actions as (or might ahve) stopped someone else from doing it.

Once a guy places a wager on a game he's involved in he's suspect, the game is suspect and that drives a contest more towards pro wrestling.. or in short a joke.

StillFunkyB
08-24-2009, 07:31 PM
I just don't understand why his accomplishments as a player can't be recognized.

Why can't he be "asterisked" with something along the lines of "Banned from baseball for gambling when active manager" or what not.

I've just always felt that he should be in the Hall as a player but be noted that he was banned after his playing days because he bet on baseball as the manager of the Reds.

Besides all of the MLB HoF, he at least should be allowed into the Reds HoF, and I really wish the Reds could "officially" retire #14.

I dunno.

RedRoser
08-24-2009, 07:43 PM
Again, nothing justifies nor forgives Rose for all his sins, but that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to crucify him.[/QUOTE]

Nothing? Really?

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
Colossians 1:14 . . . in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 11:25, 26, “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in Heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”

So according to this verse, God forgives us if we forgive others. But He doesn’t if we don’t. So, there’s one reason why He forgives us; because we forgive others.

Now are you really saying that there is no forgiveness for Rose's sins? :eek:

Highlifeman21
08-24-2009, 09:03 PM
Great article, very accurate, insightful and well written.

But I think it is clear that Bart did make the wrong decision also. Rose shares most of the blame, and could not have handle the whole ordeal worse, but if Giamatti was a smart commissioner, he never would have brought up the case in the first place.

Remember that Kuhn and Ueberroth both had the same information that Giamatti had and decided not to act on it, for the good of the game. Everyone knew that Rose had a gambling problem, even when he was playing. Going after Rose was the first thing Giamatti did as Commissioner. He clearly had an agenda, even it was just to achieve what he considered justice.

Allegedly, at first Giamatti called him Rose into his office and told him about the evidence he had and said that if Rose retired as manager, nothing would happen and he could stay in baseball, as long as he did not manage ever again. Rose reportedly told Giamatti that prosecuting him would be bad for the game of baseball, would lose too many fans, and practically dared him to do it. I believe I heard that the expression, "bigger than the game" came up.

Giamatti didn't blink, commissioned the Dowd report (which just was an official version of what they already knew) got the justice he wanted, but the game was damaged, and will never fully recover in my opinion. Rose was right on that account, even though he was in the wrong on nearly everything else.

A smart commissioner, with the best interests of the sport in mind, would never had brought this public. In fact, a really smart commissioner would have found ways to guarantee that this never became public. He would make sure that the "friends" who ratted out Rose were discredited, and not taken seriously.

If this was an epidemic, if there were many players betting on games, that would be different and require different action. But when it is isolated to just one star, actually one of the most popular stars of the game ever, it would be easy and wise to contain it, monitor it, and let it eventually fade away.

Again, nothing justifies nor forgives Rose for all his sins, but that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to crucify him.

So baseball's worse b/c Pete's been gone for 20 years?

Really?


...but the game was damaged, and will never fully recover in my opinion.

westofyou
08-24-2009, 09:15 PM
Again, nothing justifies nor forgives Rose for all his sins, but that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to crucify him.
Nothing? Really?

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
Colossians 1:14 . . . in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 11:25, 26, “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in Heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”

So according to this verse, God forgives us if we forgive others. But He doesn’t if we don’t. So, there’s one reason why He forgives us; because we forgive others.

Now are you really saying that there is no forgiveness for Rose's sins?

But in this case they're using this book, not that one.

MLB 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.

TheNext44
08-24-2009, 09:39 PM
So baseball's worse b/c Pete's been gone for 20 years?

Really?

The prosecution of Rose was the beginning of a huge decline of baseball, socially. For nearly the entire decade, it was America's Pastime. Every kid grew up wanting to a fireman or a baseball player. Now it is the third most popular sport behind Basketball and Football. Most kids play it because they aren't any good at the other sports.

Sure, owners make more money now, but is that what the game is about? Is that what makes the game great? Is that what makes it an integral part of American culture? It no longer is that, and never will be again.

Banning Rose was not the cause of this, but it was the beginning. It made it easier for fans to care less about the game after the lockout of '94, to not care when an Owner crowned himself commissioner, and to be more cynical about the PED scandals. When fans learned that the hit leader and one of the most popular players of all time was being treated like a criminal, their impression of baseball changed.

Baseball has lost its luster, its aura, its majesty. It no longer is men playing a kids game, it's men fighting over billions, and doing anything, including cheat, to get a bigger chunk of those billions.

Baseball had these problems before Giamatti decided to drag Rose through the mud, but his doing so, caused fans to look at the game differently, to realize that these problems exist and are real.

Up until then, commissioners made it their number one duty to protect the image of baseball, to ensure that fans saw only its glory, and not its guts. Giamatti's decision to prosecute Rose in public was a dereliction of that duty.

Maybe the fans would learn the truth about the game they loved eventually, regardless of Giamatti's decision, but his decision made sure that they did as soon as he made it.

westofyou
08-24-2009, 09:42 PM
The prosecution of Rose was the beginning of a huge decline of baseball, socially. For nearly the entire decade, it was America's Pastime. Every kid grew up wanting to a fireman or a baseball player. Now it is the third most popular sport behind Basketball and Football. Most kids play it because they aren't any good at the other sports.

Baseball waned in your description in the 60's look at the attendance figures and the rise of football on tv, it had nothing to do with Pete Rose, the Cowboys and Steelers killed your scenario more in the 70's than Pete Rose killed anything in 1989.

Highlifeman21
08-24-2009, 09:57 PM
The prosecution of Rose was the beginning of a huge decline of baseball, socially. For nearly the entire decade, it was America's Pastime. Every kid grew up wanting to a fireman or a baseball player. Now it is the third most popular sport behind Basketball and Football. Most kids play it because they aren't any good at the other sports.

Sure, owners make more money now, but is that what the game is about? Is that what makes the game great? Is that what makes it an integral part of American culture? It no longer is that, and never will be again.

Banning Rose was not the cause of this, but it was the beginning. It made it easier for fans to care less about the game after the lockout of '94, to not care when an Owner crowned himself commissioner, and to be more cynical about the PED scandals. When fans learned that the hit leader and one of the most popular players of all time was being treated like a criminal, their impression of baseball changed.

Baseball has lost its luster, its aura, its majesty. It no longer is men playing a kids game, it's men fighting over billions, and doing anything, including cheat, to get a bigger chunk of those billions.

Baseball had these problems before Giamatti decided to drag Rose through the mud, but his doing so, caused fans to look at the game differently, to realize that these problems exist and are real.

Up until then, commissioners made it their number one duty to protect the image of baseball, to ensure that fans saw only its glory, and not its guts. Giamatti's decision to prosecute Rose in public was a dereliction of that duty.

Maybe the fans would learn the truth about the game they loved eventually, regardless of Giamatti's decision, but his decision made sure that they did as soon as he made it.

And all of this is b/c Angelo Bartlett Giamatti kicked Rose's butt to the curb?

I don't buy it at all.

This all reeks of Pete Rose fanboy-dom.

TheNext44
08-24-2009, 10:13 PM
And all of this is b/c Angelo Bartlett Giamatti kicked Rose's butt to the curb?

I don't buy it at all.

This all reeks of Pete Rose fanboy-dom.

I didn't say that, in fact I specifically said otherwise.


Banning Rose was not the cause of this, but it was the beginning.

I even qualified it even more.


Maybe the fans would learn the truth about the game they loved eventually, regardless of Giamatti's decision, but his decision made sure that they did as soon as he made it.

My point is that Giamatti's decision started the general cynicism that permeates the game today. And regardless of the results, Giamatti decision was not made with the best interests of baseball in mind, but his desire to seek justice against Rose. It was a poor decision for a commissioner to make.

TheNext44
08-24-2009, 10:14 PM
Nothing? Really?

Colossians 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
Colossians 1:14 . . . in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 11:25, 26, “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in Heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”

So according to this verse, God forgives us if we forgive others. But He doesn’t if we don’t. So, there’s one reason why He forgives us; because we forgive others.

Now are you really saying that there is no forgiveness for Rose's sins? :eek:

You are correct. Thank you for correcting my error. :)

15fan
08-24-2009, 10:53 PM
Great article, very accurate, insightful and well written.

But I think it is clear that Bart did make the wrong decision also. Rose shares most of the blame, and could not have handle the whole ordeal worse, but if Giamatti was a smart commissioner, he never would have brought up the case in the first place.

Remember that Kuhn and Ueberroth both had the same information that Giamatti had and decided not to act on it, for the good of the game. Everyone knew that Rose had a gambling problem, even when he was playing. Going after Rose was the first thing Giamatti did as Commissioner. He clearly had an agenda, even it was just to achieve what he considered justice.

Allegedly, at first Giamatti called him Rose into his office and told him about the evidence he had and said that if Rose retired as manager, nothing would happen and he could stay in baseball, as long as he did not manage ever again. Rose reportedly told Giamatti that prosecuting him would be bad for the game of baseball, would lose too many fans, and practically dared him to do it. I believe I heard that the expression, "bigger than the game" came up.

Giamatti didn't blink, commissioned the Dowd report (which just was an official version of what they already knew) got the justice he wanted, but the game was damaged, and will never fully recover in my opinion. Rose was right on that account, even though he was in the wrong on nearly everything else.

A smart commissioner, with the best interests of the sport in mind, would never had brought this public. In fact, a really smart commissioner would have found ways to guarantee that this never became public. He would make sure that the "friends" who ratted out Rose were discredited, and not taken seriously.

If this was an epidemic, if there were many players betting on games, that would be different and require different action. But when it is isolated to just one star, actually one of the most popular stars of the game ever, it would be easy and wise to contain it, monitor it, and let it eventually fade away.

Again, nothing justifies nor forgives Rose for all his sins, but that doesn't mean that the best course of action was to crucify him.

On the contrary. It was, is, and always will be 100% the right decision to kick him out & lock the door behind him.

If you repeatedly break one of the rules that is in place to protect the integrity of the game, then stonewall, deny, and thwart any attempt to get the truth on the table, you're gone.

No matter how many hits you have.

cincrazy
08-24-2009, 11:03 PM
The prosecution of Rose was the beginning of a huge decline of baseball, socially. For nearly the entire decade, it was America's Pastime. Every kid grew up wanting to a fireman or a baseball player. Now it is the third most popular sport behind Basketball and Football. Most kids play it because they aren't any good at the other sports.

Sure, owners make more money now, but is that what the game is about? Is that what makes the game great? Is that what makes it an integral part of American culture? It no longer is that, and never will be again.

Banning Rose was not the cause of this, but it was the beginning. It made it easier for fans to care less about the game after the lockout of '94, to not care when an Owner crowned himself commissioner, and to be more cynical about the PED scandals. When fans learned that the hit leader and one of the most popular players of all time was being treated like a criminal, their impression of baseball changed.

Baseball has lost its luster, its aura, its majesty. It no longer is men playing a kids game, it's men fighting over billions, and doing anything, including cheat, to get a bigger chunk of those billions.

Baseball had these problems before Giamatti decided to drag Rose through the mud, but his doing so, caused fans to look at the game differently, to realize that these problems exist and are real.

Up until then, commissioners made it their number one duty to protect the image of baseball, to ensure that fans saw only its glory, and not its guts. Giamatti's decision to prosecute Rose in public was a dereliction of that duty.

Maybe the fans would learn the truth about the game they loved eventually, regardless of Giamatti's decision, but his decision made sure that they did as soon as he made it.

My friend, Pete Rose dragged himself through the mud, and has deserved everything that has come his way the last 20 years. He's a slimeball of a person, a cheat, and it caught up to him.

George Anderson
08-24-2009, 11:05 PM
If you repeatedly break one of the rules that is in place to protect the integrity of the game, then stonewall, deny, and thwart any attempt to get the truth on the table, you're gone.

.

Oh Pete came out and leveled with us a few years ago and told us the truth.....we just had to pay him $29.95 to get the details in his book.

TheNext44
08-25-2009, 12:42 AM
My friend, Pete Rose dragged himself through the mud, and has deserved everything that has come his way the last 20 years. He's a slimeball of a person, a cheat, and it caught up to him.

I agree that he deserves what he got, but that is not the issue. He was guilty, everyone knew it, in fact everyone knew it when he was playing. It was baseball's worst kept secret.

The question is not did Rose deserve what he got, but was it good for baseball that Giamatti prosecuted Rose in public. Judge Landis, who was no softy, kept his punishment of Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker private when they were caught throwing a game. They were such big stars that he felt it would hurt baseball too much to make it public.

That is all that I am criticizing Gaimatti over. Not punishing Rose, but making such a public spectacle of it. He tried Rose in the Press in order to embarrass him. That is what hurt baseball, and that is the biggest mistake that Giamatti made in the whole Rose saga.

Hoosier Red
08-25-2009, 12:48 AM
Oh Pete came out and leveled with us a few years ago and told us the truth.....we just had to pay him $29.95 to get the details in his book.

Even with that he hasn't "leveled" with anyone. He still swears he bet the same amount on every game(as if this makes everything okay.)
What would you place the odds that he ever bet while as a player?

George Anderson
08-25-2009, 01:21 AM
Even with that he hasn't "leveled" with anyone. He still swears he bet the same amount on every game(as if this makes everything okay.)
What would you place the odds that he ever bet while as a player?

I really wouldn't know because I wouldn't pay even 29 cents to buy the book and read the details of why Peter Edward Rose lied to me for 14 years.

My wife made a mistake and bought me the book at a discount rate as a gift years ago and I have yet to open it and I bet I never will.

Yachtzee
08-25-2009, 01:49 AM
I agree that he deserves what he got, but that is not the issue. He was guilty, everyone knew it, in fact everyone knew it when he was playing. It was baseball's worst kept secret.

The question is not did Rose deserve what he got, but was it good for baseball that Giamatti prosecuted Rose in public. Judge Landis, who was no softy, kept his punishment of Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker private when they were caught throwing a game. They were such big stars that he felt it would hurt baseball too much to make it public.

That is all that I am criticizing Gaimatti over. Not punishing Rose, but making such a public spectacle of it. He tried Rose in the Press in order to embarrass him. That is what hurt baseball, and that is the biggest mistake that Giamatti made in the whole Rose saga.

I have a hard time buying that Giamatti hurt baseball by the way he handled the Pete Rose matter. In fact, I can remember most of the baseball fans not really getting too broken up about it by the 1990 season. In fact, myself and most Reds fans I knew seemed to be taken in by the wire-to-wire first place Reds and their World Series triumph over the A's. I can even remember my friend Joe actually saying that Rose's banishment was good because he could only get the team to second place, where as Lou Pinella was finally able to take the team to the promised land.

In the time after Rose's banishment, not a lot of people wanted much to do with the guy. He was in and out of federal prison and his trials brought out just what kind of people he had been associating himself with. It wasn't until Rose was nearing potential Hall of Fame eligibility that people really started to toot his horn again.

RedsBaron
08-25-2009, 06:42 AM
Pete Rose deserves all of the blame for the permanent suspension from baseball of Pete Rose. Pete's arrogance and bulletproof attitude served him well as a player, but it finally destroyed him.

Hoosier Red
08-25-2009, 10:08 AM
I agree that he deserves what he got, but that is not the issue. He was guilty, everyone knew it, in fact everyone knew it when he was playing. It was baseball's worst kept secret.

The question is not did Rose deserve what he got, but was it good for baseball that Giamatti prosecuted Rose in public. Judge Landis, who was no softy, kept his punishment of Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker private when they were caught throwing a game. They were such big stars that he felt it would hurt baseball too much to make it public.

That is all that I am criticizing Gaimatti over. Not punishing Rose, but making such a public spectacle of it. He tried Rose in the Press in order to embarrass him. That is what hurt baseball, and that is the biggest mistake that Giamatti made in the whole Rose saga.


I think you're making Giamatti's part way too big here. Judge Landis in the 20's and Giamatti in the 80's operated in completely different worlds.

Judge Landis worked at a time where the press had little access to things that authorities didn't want them to access. If Landis wanted to keep a secret he could. Also, the press during that time saw itself as stewards of the game in many respects, there was no journalistic rules against "cheering in the press box." Baseball writers would have kept the secret if they thought it would be better for the game.

In the 80's press coverage was much more investigative. Journalistic ethics required that a reporter follow through with a story whether it would be good for the game or not. You come up with a scenario where Giamatti gives Rose say a silent 30 game suspension, or finds some other reason to suspend him. Can you imagine the outrage if people found out about the gambling then, and then learned that baseball tried to cover it up? The game would be wrecked forever.

TRF
08-25-2009, 11:39 AM
The question is not did Rose deserve what he got, but was it good for baseball that Giamatti prosecuted Rose in public. Judge Landis, who was no softy, kept his punishment of Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker private when they were caught throwing a game. They were such big stars that he felt it would hurt baseball too much to make it public.

revisionist history. Landis kept it mostly quiet, not because they were big stars, but because baseball couldn't afford another scandal after the the 1919 WS.

It was too much too soon.

Cincinnati will be much better off when it lets the ghost of Pete Rose die and embraces the memory of Barry Larkin, the best SS in franchise history.

westofyou
08-25-2009, 11:51 AM
revisionist history. Landis kept it mostly quiet, not because they were big stars, but because baseball couldn't afford another scandal after the the 1919 WS.

It was too much too soon.

Cincinnati will be much better off when it lets the ghost of Pete Rose die and embraces the memory of Barry Larkin, the best SS in franchise history.

The evidence was specious too, especially when compared to other gambling scandals.

That said if the accuser refuses to show, testify and point fingers it's all moot.

There is no comparison of the two incidents beyond the guys fame.

Highlifeman21
08-25-2009, 11:54 AM
I agree that he deserves what he got, but that is not the issue. He was guilty, everyone knew it, in fact everyone knew it when he was playing. It was baseball's worst kept secret.

The question is not did Rose deserve what he got, but was it good for baseball that Giamatti prosecuted Rose in public. Judge Landis, who was no softy, kept his punishment of Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker private when they were caught throwing a game. They were such big stars that he felt it would hurt baseball too much to make it public.

That is all that I am criticizing Gaimatti over. Not punishing Rose, but making such a public spectacle of it. He tried Rose in the Press in order to embarrass him. That is what hurt baseball, and that is the biggest mistake that Giamatti made in the whole Rose saga.

Giamatti did exactly what he was supposed to do. Protect the integrity of the game of baseball.

He did so by cutting Pete Rose down to size and exposing him for what he did and who he was. Giamatti needed to make everything regarding Rose public, so he could prove that no player is bigger than the game.

Giamatti didn't hurt baseball by how he handled the Rose fiasco, but actually achieved the exact opposite. He made baseball a better game. Baseball wasn't hurt, and certainly didn't suffer with the loss of Rose.

TheNext44
08-25-2009, 01:00 PM
Cincinnati will be much better off when it lets the ghost of Pete Rose die and embraces the memory of Barry Larkin, the best SS in franchise history.

I'll agree with you on this. :beerme:

Roy Tucker
08-25-2009, 01:13 PM
Pete Rose deserves all of the blame for the permanent suspension from baseball of Pete Rose. Pete's arrogance and bulletproof attitude served him well as a player, but it finally destroyed him.

I agree with this totally. How he handled the situation as it occurred and then over the following 20 years can bring me only to this conclusion.

But its really all too bad. Pete was the ultimate Cincinnati hero and could have had an enormously productive and happy life here in Cincinnati in and out of baseball. Such a hugely popular figure. But he blew it totally, completely, and absolutely and now is a permanent pariah banished the deserts of Las Vegas. So be it.

TheNext44
08-25-2009, 01:24 PM
I think you're making Giamatti's part way too big here. Judge Landis in the 20's and Giamatti in the 80's operated in completely different worlds.

Judge Landis worked at a time where the press had little access to things that authorities didn't want them to access. If Landis wanted to keep a secret he could. Also, the press during that time saw itself as stewards of the game in many respects, there was no journalistic rules against "cheering in the press box." Baseball writers would have kept the secret if they thought it would be better for the game.

In the 80's press coverage was much more investigative. Journalistic ethics required that a reporter follow through with a story whether it would be good for the game or not. You come up with a scenario where Giamatti gives Rose say a silent 30 game suspension, or finds some other reason to suspend him. Can you imagine the outrage if people found out about the gambling then, and then learned that baseball tried to cover it up? The game would be wrecked forever.


revisionist history. Landis kept it mostly quiet, not because they were big stars, but because baseball couldn't afford another scandal after the the 1919 WS.

It was too much too soon.


The evidence was specious too, especially when compared to other gambling scandals.

That said if the accuser refuses to show, testify and point fingers it's all moot.

There is no comparison of the two incidents beyond the guys fame.

The two events don't have to be exactly the same to understand that there are times when a commissioner is better served by dealing with a problem privately, instead of publicly and in the press.

I can come up with dozens of others in major league sports history if I wanted to do the research, and there would be better comps. There are countless examples in the criminal world when prosecutors do the same thing, and quietly work out deals to avoid public trails.

It might be the case where Giamatti could have suspended Rose for gambling, made that public, but simply not issue the Dowd report and play it up to the max in the press like he did.

Chip R
08-25-2009, 01:30 PM
I agree with this totally. How he handled the situation as it occurred and then over the following 20 years can bring me only to this conclusion.

But its really all too bad. Pete was the ultimate Cincinnati hero and could have had an enormously productive and happy life here in Cincinnati in and out of baseball. Such a hugely popular figure.


If he moved back here he would still be hugely popular. He lives in Vegas by choice.

NJReds
08-25-2009, 01:31 PM
It might be the case where Giamatti could have suspended Rose for gambling, made that public, but simply not issue the Dowd report and play it up to the max in the press like he did.

From what I've heard and read, he did try to cut a deal with Rose before it became public. Rose, on the advice from his laywer/handlers, declined to meet with Giamatti.

Rose dared baseball to take action, so they did.

I was a Rose apologist for a long time. (Should be in the "things I was wrong about" thread). He brought this upon himself, and his complete disregard for honesty and changing his behavior is why he's in the position that he's in today.

Chip R
08-25-2009, 01:53 PM
The two events don't have to be exactly the same to understand that there are times when a commissioner is better served by dealing with a problem privately, instead of publicly and in the press.

I can come up with dozens of others in major league sports history if I wanted to do the research, and there would be better comps. There are countless examples in the criminal world when prosecutors do the same thing, and quietly work out deals to avoid public trails.

It might be the case where Giamatti could have suspended Rose for gambling, made that public, but simply not issue the Dowd report and play it up to the max in the press like he did.

When something like that happens it takes both sides to agree to handle this in private and plea bargain.


From what I've heard and read, he did try to cut a deal with Rose before it became public. Rose, on the advice from his laywer/handlers, declined to meet with Giamatti.

Rose dared baseball to take action, so they did.



What he said. Rose was so arrogant and dumb that he thought that his popularity with the fans and media would make Giamatti cave.

cincrazy
08-25-2009, 02:26 PM
The two events don't have to be exactly the same to understand that there are times when a commissioner is better served by dealing with a problem privately, instead of publicly and in the press.

I can come up with dozens of others in major league sports history if I wanted to do the research, and there would be better comps. There are countless examples in the criminal world when prosecutors do the same thing, and quietly work out deals to avoid public trails.

It might be the case where Giamatti could have suspended Rose for gambling, made that public, but simply not issue the Dowd report and play it up to the max in the press like he did.

Just because Pete Rose was one of the greastest players in baseball history doesn't mean he's any better than anyone else. Whether you're Norris Hopper, or Pete Rose, you suffer the consequences.

westofyou
08-25-2009, 02:30 PM
I can come up with dozens of others in major league sports history if I wanted to do the research, and there would be better comps.

Like the lifetime banning of Jim Devlin? Or the banning of Hal Chase, Heinnie Zimmerman, or the banishment of William Cox?

As for other sports they aren't baseball so inessence the comparison is moot.

IslandRed
08-25-2009, 03:54 PM
It might be the case where Giamatti could have suspended Rose for gambling, made that public, but simply not issue the Dowd report and play it up to the max in the press like he did.

1989 was way beyond the point at which Pete Rose could be suspended from baseball for gambling and the matter would be left at that. The frenzy would have been somewhat different -- instead of dissecting the Dowd Report, media outlets would have been busy compiling their own in response to people demanding to know "what did he do?" -- but it wouldn't have made Rose or baseball look any better.

RedRoser
08-26-2009, 03:41 PM
But in this case they're using this book, not that one.

MLB 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.


I understand that, woy, but wherein does the MLB policy address forgiveness? It's not there. He can be permanently ineligible, but I was responding to the post that said Rose can never be "forgiven" for his "sins."

Hoosier Red
08-26-2009, 04:30 PM
I wrote this e-mail to Lance after another night of his constant "It's easy to do and everyone wants it to happen."

I was so pleased with myself I thought I'd print it here.


I'll grant you that it would be the popular move and the easy move for Bud Selig to make if you'll grant that in matters of the integrity of the game, it doesn't matter what is popular or easy but rather what is right.

So with that in mind let's examine Pete Rose right and wrong.


Was there any gray area for Pete Rose when it came to betting, is it possible that Pete Rose did not know it was against baseball's rules to do what he did?


Is there any way he didn't know what the punishment would be for breaking those rules?


No and No. As has been repeated Ad Nauseum, the rule is clearly printed in black and white in every clubhouse.


Were there any mitigating factors to gambling, such as the 1919 Black Sox who had a cheapskate owner and were tempted by the lure of actually being paid?


No, this was not Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread for his family, Pete gambled because that's what Pete does.


When confronted with the gambling, did Pete help out the prosecution(Dowd) in any way, was he cooperative?(Of course this sometimes leads to a lighter sentance.)

No, all indications are that Pete stonewalled the investigation at every turn and turned down a deal that was offered.

When the sentence was handed down, did Pete come clean and admit to doing wrong? (Often times it's the criminal who admits what they did was wrong and can thus work towards rehabilitation.)


No, Pete insisted for years that he never gambled on baseball. After admitting that he gambled on baseball, he then said he never gambled on the Reds. After admitting that he gambled on the Reds he then said he gambled on them to win, and gambled the same amount every night. We almost certainly know that this is a lie, the report shows very consistent patterns of gambling, but not on nights when certain pitchers were going to start.) How can we trust Pete when he won't come completely clean? Did he ever gamble on the Reds to lose? Did he ever change how he managed based on whether he had action on the game. Did he ever gamble on baseball as a player?


When the sentence was handed down, the commissioner at the time told Pete to go and reconfigure his life. Is there any indication he's done so?


No, in the years' since he has been convicted of tax evasion for failing to report income on card show income (again with the lies) to my knowledge he has failed to admit to any gambling issues. I'm sure interested parties like Gamblers Anonymous would love for him to come and speak about the dangers of where it led him, but to my knowledge he has never done so.


Given that Pete LOVES BASEBALL and would BE THE GREATEST AMBASSADOR for the game, wouldn't it make sense to bring him back and let him talk to teams about the dangers of gambling?


At this time, nothing is keeping Pete from doing this for high schools and colleges. There is no rule that I know of that says he can't coach on the high school or college level, but instead he sells his autograph in front of a casino.
What's he likely to do if you grant him a conditional reinstatement?

George Anderson
08-26-2009, 04:44 PM
What was the deal Pete supposedly turned down?

Hoosier Red
08-26-2009, 04:47 PM
What was the deal Pete supposedly turned down?

That's a good question. I've only heard Dowd mention that a deal was offered. If I had to guess it would have been something like a 1 year suspension and maybe a longer suspension from managing.

Col_ IN Reds fan
08-26-2009, 04:58 PM
That's a good question. I've only heard Dowd mention that a deal was offered. If I had to guess it would have been something like a 1 year suspension and maybe a longer suspension from managing.

I read somewhere ,never being able to manage again.

Chip R
08-26-2009, 05:51 PM
I wonder what would have happened to Pete here in Cincinnati if he had never placed a bet on a baseball game. Would he still be manager today? Could he have guided the 1990 team to the post-season and the Series? If he wouldn't have won at least a division championship by, say, 1995, would he still be the Reds manager or would he have been fired? If he had success would he have left for greener pastures?

westofyou
08-26-2009, 05:59 PM
What was the deal Pete supposedly turned down?

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2004/01/06/2004-01-06_a_pete_rose_primer.html


in 1989, deputy commissioner Fay Vincent offered Rose a plea bargain that would banish him from the game for 10 years. Rose turned down that offer, then another seven-year offer (he could have accepted and been back in the game by 1996).

TheNext44
08-26-2009, 06:34 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2004/01/06/2004-01-06_a_pete_rose_primer.html

I think that this shows that Rose thought that he could get the public behind him and be reinstated in a year or two, or at least got advice that this was the case.

That was a very generous offer from Vincent, considering the evidence. Really shows the arrogance Rose had, especially when he knew he was guilty.

UKFlounder
08-26-2009, 07:15 PM
I don't think Marge would have fired him, but I wonder if he would have grown frustrated and quit.

Otherwise, I think he would have been here as long as Marge was in control.


I wonder what would have happened to Pete here in Cincinnati if he had never placed a bet on a baseball game. Would he still be manager today? Could he have guided the 1990 team to the post-season and the Series? If he wouldn't have won at least a division championship by, say, 1995, would he still be the Reds manager or would he have been fired? If he had success would he have left for greener pastures?