PDA

View Full Version : When Did It Hit You That Pete was Guilty?



Sea Ray
02-02-2011, 12:14 PM
Rather than hijack another thread, I'm re-posting this message with a new central question. When did you decide that Pete really was guilty of betting on baseball? The following led to me actually pondering this question:


I actually think Pete would be caught eventually anyway...he's an addict. But I thought I'd give it a shot. Pete was a huge, huge hero for many of my close friends...I was a big Joe Morgan fan, but my brother and my best friend lived and died with Peter Edward. He was the embodiment of everything they believed in and they both emulated him in their own lives...always hustling and giving it 110%. When the news broke, they were the last to say maybe he was guilty and as the years wore on and we learned more you could see how crushed they were that their boyhood hero had turned out to be such a fraud. One of them won't speak about him now and the other has nothing but bitter things to say about Pete. I just wanted to spare them and the thousands of Cincinnatians like them that experience...or at least give it a shot.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen137.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

It's interesting to study "when" it hit Reds' fans that Pete bet on baseball. For me it was the August 1989 press conference with Bart Giamatti where he accepted a lifetime ban. Up until that point I supported Pete and thought the Commissioner and his boys were railroading him. But it all changed at that presser. If Pete was going to accept those terms then he must be guilty. For years afterwards I argued with other Reds fans about this until now, most of them admit his guilt.

The other end of the spectrum are the folks who called into local talk shows after his on TV admission with Charlie Gibson saying things like "I think Pete just said that he bet on baseball in order to get people off his back and get into the HoF. I don't think he really ever bet on BB."

Where do you fall on this?

_Sir_Charles_
02-02-2011, 12:19 PM
The moment he actually admitted it. I've known Pete off and on for years and I convinced myself that he never could've bet on the Reds. I just couldn't force myself to admit it. Heck, I still can't believe he ever bet on the Reds to lose. But I'm kinda stupid that way.

gonelong
02-02-2011, 12:30 PM
When Giamatti stated he thought Rose bet on games at the press conference, it was the moment of realization for me.

GL

George Anderson
02-02-2011, 12:42 PM
I think I was in the camp that I really didn't care if Pete bet on baseball as long as he didn't throw games. At the time I thought there should be no problem with players betting on games as long as they didn't throw them. I realize now this thinking was wrong. I also recall hearing alot of interviews on WLW with Pete giving his jaded side of the story and coming away with the conclusion that no way did he bet on baseball.

I really gave up on Pete when he did admit to betting on the game but wouldn't give the details unless you bought his book for $29.95. He lied to his loyal fans for 14 years and now he was trying to profit off it. What an ass.

RedFanAlways1966
02-02-2011, 12:48 PM
The day of the press conference announcing his ban from the game. I was pro-Pete before that and thought someone was just out to get him. Once he appeared at the press conference and announced that he accepted the ban, I felt dumb. Dumber than him. I will never forgive him for lying to me, for making me feel dumb and more importantly... breaking the #1 rule in organized sports.

westofyou
02-02-2011, 12:51 PM
When he wore all those hats for SI (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1094266/1/index.htm) during his FA year.

Oh... you meant for gambling.

That would be when he refused to fight the charges.

George Anderson
02-02-2011, 12:56 PM
When he wore all those hats for SI (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1094266/1/index.htm) during his FA year.

.

That SI cover couldn't be more appropriate for the article inside.

Redsfaithful
02-02-2011, 01:19 PM
Bill James thought he was innocent, and I bought his reasoning. I came down on the side of innocent until he admitted it.

RedsBaron
02-02-2011, 01:36 PM
Bill James thought he was innocent, and I bought his reasoning. I came down on the side of innocent until he admitted it.
Bill James made a good case for Rose. While I guess I always thought he was guilty, from the time this greatest of competitors surrendered, accepted his initial ban, and then went to prison, I always kind of hoped that he was innocent of betting on the game, and even now I find it hard to believe that Rose threw games or bet on the Reds to lose (and I have seen no proof that he did that). The whole thing is a shame, but Pete has no one to blame but himself.

15fan
02-02-2011, 01:41 PM
You don't accept a lifetime ban if you're innocent.

redhawkfish
02-02-2011, 01:42 PM
I was raised by a father who had heard rumblings about Pete's character. He always told me it was OK to root for him on the field, but that was it. I was allowed to have no Rose memorabilia in the house. So I thought he was guilty the first time I heard of any charges.

RedsManRick
02-02-2011, 01:44 PM
Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe it's because I came to fandom just as Pete was getting barred, or maybe it's because I've spun a tale or three myself in my day, but I was always of the belief that he was 100% guilty. Addiction is a powerful thing and I simply don't trust any addict who claims certain limits to their addictive behavior.

Always Red
02-02-2011, 02:13 PM
That would be when he refused to fight the charges.


You don't accept a lifetime ban if you're innocent.

Me too; if you're innocent, you fight it to the end.

bucksfan2
02-02-2011, 03:02 PM
I wasn't old enough to really watch Pete play. I wasn't old enough to understand what went on and tended to believe in what Pete said. As I got older and started to realize the true character behind Pete I started to waver and didn't really know what to believe. It came as no shock to me when Pete admitted to betting on baseball and tried to profit from that by selling his book.

What irritates me is Pete is a black eye to this city that people living here don't realize. He lied for years and was supported strongly every time he decided to come home to Cincy. Every time he needs an ego boost he attends a Reds game in which the fans cheer wildly when he is announced. I just wish he would go away.

westofyou
02-02-2011, 03:22 PM
What irritates me is Pete is a black eye to this city that people living here don't realize. He lied for years and was supported strongly every time he decided to come home to Cincy. Every time he needs an ego boost he attends a Reds game in which the fans cheer wildly when he is announced. I just wish he would go away.

And this is exactly the legacy he's sowing at this time.

It's a sad thing for sure.

George Anderson
02-02-2011, 03:38 PM
I don't wanna get to far off topic but does anyone have any insight why Pete is the person that he is?? I mean did his parents raise him and his siblings to be lacking in character or is he simply a product of being a spoiled, pampered athlete who along with not being very smart thought he could do no wrong?

bucksfan2
02-02-2011, 03:55 PM
I don't wanna get to far off topic but does anyone have any insight why Pete is the person that he is?? I mean did his parents raise him and his siblings to be lacking in character or is he simply a product of being a spoiled, pampered athlete who along with not being very smart thought he could do no wrong?

From everything I have heard Pete was always "a little rough around the edges". I think you could say that he was raised in a lower middle class household but I can't be sure about that. Just guesses. To be honest I think you can still describe him as "a little rough around the edges".

westofyou
02-02-2011, 04:09 PM
From everything I have heard Pete was always "a little rough around the edges". I think you could say that he was raised in a lower middle class household but I can't be sure about that. Just guesses. To be honest I think you can still describe him as "a little rough around the edges".

He grew up going to the track as well, his uncle took him, he met his wife there, he loved the action... he'd not the only man in baseball that loved the ponies (McGraw, Dressen to name two) but he was intoxicated by the action.

George Anderson
02-02-2011, 04:27 PM
From everything I have heard Pete was always "a little rough around the edges". I think you could say that he was raised in a lower middle class household but I can't be sure about that. Just guesses. To be honest I think you can still describe him as "a little rough around the edges".

Oh I know from what I have seen and read Pete is very rough around the edges. I guess what I am curious about is was he raised to believe that it is no big deal to do things unethically or illegally to get what you want out of life or to be regarded as the best? I realize unless you had access to the Rose family or were around when he was growing up this would be very hard to answer but I still have always wondered this.

One possible way for this question to be answered is does his family froth at the mouth defending him for his past or do they just role their eyes when his name is mentioned? If they froth at the mouth defending him then I would say that is a good indication of how he was raised.If they seem embarrased by him then I would say he was a victim of his addiction, fame and fortune and sadly his stupidity.

Caveat Emperor
02-02-2011, 04:31 PM
Innocent people don't plead guilty.

Pete is not an innocent man.

IslandRed
02-02-2011, 04:33 PM
not the only man in baseball that loved the ponies (McGraw, Dressen to name two) but he was intoxicated by the action.

Yep. Addicted to adrenaline may be a good way to put it. He couldn't turn it off when he came off the field.

Now, someone doesn't have to be rich or famous to be a compulsive gambler, and in many cases these guys aren't otherwise obviously bad people. But here you had one of those personalities intermingled with fame, fortune and the hubris that comes from generally having the world by the tail, and that was Pete Rose.

Anyway, to answer the original question, for me too it was the accepting of the ban.

SunDeck
02-02-2011, 04:43 PM
I worked at a restaurant where a couple guys were middle men in Cincinnati book making. Pete was well known to all of them- it was never a surprise to me that he bet on baseball or the Reds.

Orenda
02-02-2011, 04:53 PM
Yep. Addicted to adrenaline may be a good way to put it. He couldn't turn it off when he came off the field.

Now, someone doesn't have to be rich or famous to be a compulsive gambler, and in many cases these guys aren't otherwise obviously bad people. But here you had one of those personalities intermingled with fame, fortune and the hubris that comes from generally having the world by the tail, and that was Pete Rose.

.

I would say that was probably magnified by being in a position to have an impact on the game. Some people think he should be re-instated because he has admitted to it after all these years, but I still have a hard time believing his assertion that he always bet on the Reds. I don't know why people give him the benefit of the doubt on that aspect of it.

I would think it would be easier to lose a game than it would be to win one and the team improved right after he left. But that part of reds history was just before my time as a reds fan so I don't have any memories of him making questionable moves, does anyone recall many examples of poor managing?

TheNext44
02-02-2011, 05:07 PM
All these responses about being convinced Pete was guilty when he accepted a lifetime ban just emphasizes what a lying jerk Bart was.

Pete only accepted the "lifetime" ban under two conditions. One, that it would be up for re-evaluation every year by the commisioner. And two, that baseball and the commisioner make no comment on Pete's guilt or innocence.

Them literally at the ptes conference Bart violated the agreement by saying that he personally thought that Pete bet on baseball. He claimed he was making this statement as a citizen and not as commisioner to avoid being sued.

At that moment Pete knew he made a mistake. Be trusted Bart, who stabbed him in the back. Pete really thought that as long as no public statement was made, enough of the public would be on his side to force then commisioner to reinstate him at some point.

Eric_the_Red
02-02-2011, 05:09 PM
All these responses about being convinced Pete was guilty when he accepted a lifetime ban just emphasizes what a lying jerk Bart was.


So Pete and Bart were very similar people then, I suppose.

westofyou
02-02-2011, 05:11 PM
I love how Bart was a jerk... all he did was try and throw a lifeline to a drowning man.

RedsBaron
02-02-2011, 05:27 PM
From what I have read I don't think Rose was a "spoiled, pampered" athlete while growing up. His dad certainly probably pushed Pete into sports while also securing him access but it doesn't appear that his dad would have been a particularly soft touch. Pete did idolize his father and I've read accounts that his mother believes that if "Big Pete" had still been alive then he would have kept Pete to the straight and narrow.
As a successful professional athlete I am sure that Rose's ego fed on all of the adulation and by the mid-1970s he believed that none of the ordinary rules of life applied to him. Rose clearly was quite a bit "rough around the edges, even as a young player. I once read a story about where Rose, as a young player, said something to a Reds executive about the normal vices including drinking, smoking, women and gambling and that Rose thought that since he didn't drink or smoke he was at least batting .500.

Roy Tucker
02-02-2011, 05:28 PM
My dad was in the advertising biz back in the day in the Cincinnati-Dayton area. He was account manager for MacGregor Sporting Goods down this way during the early 70's.

Pete Rose was with MacGregor at the time and attended a lot of the meet-and-greets and conventions that MacGregor sponsored for area and country reps and stores. He said Pete wasn't shy when it came to hustling women and liked to hang out with what my dad called (in his 1940's-speak) "the pros".

Sea Ray
02-02-2011, 05:40 PM
Bart didn't lie. He was very clear. He said that no formal finding could be made that Pete bet on baseball unless there was a formal hearing. Pete refused that hearing thus they could not make a formal finding. But now we have hind sight and we see that Pete was merely trying to save face and that he really did bet on baseball so who cares if there was a formal finding or just a finding?

top6
02-02-2011, 05:55 PM
Obviously not applicable in this case, but all of you who are saying "innocent people don't plead guilty" are wrong, and don't really understand the type of power the government and prosecutors have. I can promise you innocent people plead guilty all the time.

As for Pete, I held out hope that he was innocent until he confessed. Not sure when I "knew" he did it - but when we confessed I discovered I wasn't surprised.

RedsBaron
02-02-2011, 06:07 PM
Obviously not applicable in this case, but all of you who are saying "innocent people don't plead guilty" are wrong, and don't really understand the type of power the government and prosecutors have. I can promise you innocent people plead guilty all the time.

As for Pete, I held out hope that he was innocent until he confessed. Not sure when I "knew" he did it - but when we confessed I discovered I wasn't surprised.

You are correct and Pete Rose technically did not "plead gulity" to betting on baseball in 1989. His "plea" was more like one of "no contest." He didn't admit his gulit until years later.

RFS62
02-02-2011, 06:48 PM
Bart Giamatti was a great man and I was so happy when he became commissioner. Finally we had a real lover of the game in charge. Not a businessman, a lover of the game.

I think it broke his heart to have to preside over the whole "sorry affair".

Pete isn't sorry he bet on baseball. He's sorry he got caught.

I had no trouble believing it the minute the investigation became public, before the ban. And I loved Pete as a player. But not as a man.

He earned all of our respect for his approach to the game as a player. He earned all of our scorn for the way he conducted his affairs. It's really none of our business what he does away from the field, unless it affects the game we love. It did.

TheNext44
02-02-2011, 06:52 PM
So Pete and Bart were very similar people then, I suppose.

You don't have to be a defender of Rose to understand that Bart was very unethical in his handling of this affair.

I am definitely not a Rose defender. The first time I realized that he was guilty was in 1991 when I working a card show where he was signing. He spent the entire time talking about his golf game earlier in the day, and all the bets made on every hole. It was clear he bet on everything, all the time.

GADawg
02-02-2011, 06:57 PM
when did I know? though in denial I'm sure i knew it most likely happened as soon as the reports started coming out... much the same as I knew O.J. did it and down deep that Tiger did it. Anyone that feels cheated, deceived, or just plain heartbroken is/was living a fantasy anyway. I think/hope as we've all gotten older that we've learned not to be let down by our "hero's"...as sad and unromantic as that is. Obviously it's impossible to completely seperate the on field-off field stuff especially as it pertains to our conversations here but still these days I try to take the personalities for what they're worth and try to focus on the W's and the memories.

btw I met Ron White today...guess I should've taken my own advice:(

TheNext44
02-02-2011, 07:05 PM
I love how Bart was a jerk... all he did was try and throw a lifeline to a drowning man.

Sounds like you went to the Michelle Bachman School of History. ;)

That's not even close to what happened and you should know it.

westofyou
02-02-2011, 07:10 PM
Sounds like you went to the Michelle Bachman School of History. ;)

That's not even close to what happened and you should know it.

Oh please, they (MLB) asked the man to stop gambling in 1971.

TheNext44
02-02-2011, 07:36 PM
Oh please, they (MLB) asked the man to stop gambling in 1971.

That's my point. Everyone knew Pete had a gambling problem for decades. Bart was the first one to want to kick Pete out of the game because of it. He never threw Pete a lifeline, he crusified him in the press then violated the deal he made with Pete within minutes of making it official.

Throwing him a lifeline would have been trying to work out a fair deal that would involve Rose admiting what did, getting treatment and then being allowed to manage again. Bart only offered Rose the chance to resign and never be allowed in base all ever again.

Bart was never a friend to Pete and was out to get him from day one. Don't you remember Bart's ridiculous and unprecidented month long suspension of Rose for numbing an umpire when Bart as the head of the NL?

westofyou
02-02-2011, 07:40 PM
In this case the lifeline was the chance to admit what fraud he was.

Which he didn't.

He was NEVER going to have chance to manage again, no deal would allow that, I don't see that as ever being an option.

As for the 30 day suspension, that's another story that I'd have to revisit before I weighed in on it.

Yachtzee
02-02-2011, 07:44 PM
I was raised by a father who had heard rumblings about Pete's character. He always told me it was OK to root for him on the field, but that was it. I was allowed to have no Rose memorabilia in the house. So I thought he was guilty the first time I heard of any charges.

My grandparents, particularly my grandmother, were no fans of Pete Rose. They likewise had heard through connections that Pete was a "me first" type guy involved in unsavory activities. When Marge Schott made Pete manager, she thought it was a terrible choice and would get annoyed whenever he came on the TV. So when I heard the news he was involved in gambling on baseball, I wasn't surprised. I didn't want to believe it, but I wasn't surprised.

TheNext44
02-02-2011, 07:47 PM
Bart didn't lie. He was very clear. He said that no formal finding could be made that Pete bet on baseball unless there was a formal hearing. Pete refused that hearing thus they could not make a formal finding. But now we have hind sight and we see that Pete was merely trying to save face and that he really did bet on baseball so who cares if there was a formal finding or just a finding?

I am referrng to Bart, at the very press conference announcing the deal, answering the very question on whether or not he believed that Pete bet on baseball. The official contract that he worked out with Pete said that MLB and the Commisioner's office made no formal conclusions about Pete's guilt or innocence, and that the commisioner and anyone else working for MLB was bannned from making a u comments about Pete's guilt or innocence.

However, when asked in the press conference, Bart said that he personally beleved that Pete bet on baseball. That is when he lied and stabbed Pete in the back. Although technically, he lied when he signed the contract.

Rojo
02-02-2011, 07:53 PM
Obviously not applicable in this case, but all of you who are saying "innocent people don't plead guilty" are wrong, and don't really understand the type of power the government and prosecutors have. I can promise you innocent people plead guilty all the time.

Yep. Confessions mean little.

I don't whether Rose bet on baseball or not. The point of Bill James' article is that neither do you. The evidence is pretty slight.

Eric_the_Red
02-02-2011, 07:59 PM
Throwing him a lifeline would have been trying to work out a fair deal that would involve Rose admiting what did, getting treatment and then being allowed to manage again. Bart only offered Rose the chance to resign and never be allowed in base all ever again.

I think you have "lifeline" and "free pass" confused.

Besides that type of deal isn't one that would make an addict change. It seems even a lifetime ban isn't enough either, with his appearances at casinos and the like.

We are a forgiving society. If Pete admitted what he did from day one, sought treatment for his addiction and maybe served a short suspension and some goodwill service on the behalf of MLB against gambling, then perhaps he would already be in the HOF today.

When Pete (and the fans) looks back at the entire situation and ponder how he arrived at his fate, he should look no further than the mirror. Bart Giamatti didn't force him to bet on baseball games, especially ones where he was the manager, and he didn't force Rose to lie about it for years.

Eric_the_Red
02-02-2011, 08:00 PM
Yep. Confessions mean little.

I don't whether Rose bet on baseball or not. The point of Bill James' article is that neither do you. The evidence is pretty slight.

I think I have a pretty good idea.

http://sportschump.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pete-rose-baseball.jpg

Yachtzee
02-02-2011, 08:03 PM
That's my point. Everyone knew Pete had a gambling problem for decades. Bart was the first one to want to kick Pete out of the game because of it. He never threw Pete a lifeline, he crusified him in the press then violated the deal he made with Pete within minutes of making it official.

Throwing him a lifeline would have been trying to work out a fair deal that would involve Rose admiting what did, getting treatment and then being allowed to manage again. Bart only offered Rose the chance to resign and never be allowed in base all ever again.

Bart was never a friend to Pete and was out to get him from day one. Don't you remember Bart's ridiculous and unprecidented month long suspension of Rose for numbing an umpire when Bart as the head of the NL?

The lifeline Bart gave him was the statement that he could apply for reinstatement. From my perspective, the problem was that, as a condition for reinstatement, Bart clearly stated that Pete needed to reconfigure his life. I don't know about you, but I took it to mean that he had to come clean, take responsibility and get help for his gambling.

It took years for Pete to come clean and he still hasn't shown any inkling that he's reconfigured his life. If Pete had taken Bart's advice, gotten help right away, offered to counsel others and stayed as far away from racetracks and casinos as humanly possible, maybe, just maybe, he might have gotten reinstated and voted into the Hall of Fame. Instead he spends all his time in Vegas working out of casinos and even his confession seemed motivated by money rather than any serious remorse for violating baseball's rules. Managing a team again? I don't think that was on the table, but then if he had changed his ways, who knows?

If Bart Giamatti was guilty of anything, it was not handing Pete a checklist of things he needed to do to get off the permanently ineligible list. But then, if he had done that, Pete might have gone through the motions without any real sincerity. I'm guessing Bart thought that Pete might change because he honestly believed that Pete felt baseball was the most important thing in his life. Unfortunately, it appears Pete loves gambling and a quick buck more.

Yachtzee
02-02-2011, 08:11 PM
Yep. Confessions mean little.

I don't whether Rose bet on baseball or not. The point of Bill James' article is that neither do you. The evidence is pretty slight.

Sure, sometimes there are false confessions, but when it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck for $30 a pop, and has done so for years, eventually, you have to admit it's a duck.

Rojo
02-02-2011, 08:18 PM
when it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck for $30 a pop, and has done so for years, eventually, you have to admit it's a duck.

Bah, evidence, who needs it.

kaldaniels
02-02-2011, 08:22 PM
Yep. Confessions mean little.

I don't whether Rose bet on baseball or not. The point of Bill James' article is that neither do you. The evidence is pretty slight.

Wait, what?

What would convince you. Today?

If someone came forward and admitted to say a murder 10 years ago, with no concrete evidence (ex. a videotape) but was able to describe what happened, would that not be enough for you to vote guilty? (edit: I don't want to go down a rabbit trail with this scenario, I just hope you understand the spirit of the scenario.)

To be clear and to be sure I'm not misunderstanding, Rojo's position is that we as the general public don't know whether Peter Edward Rose bet on baseball?

westofyou
02-02-2011, 08:30 PM
Wait, what?

What would convince you. Today?

Charlie Hustle - The Musical.

RedsManRick
02-02-2011, 08:35 PM
Yep. Confessions mean little.

I don't whether Rose bet on baseball or not. The point of Bill James' article is that neither do you. The evidence is pretty slight.

From what I've seen of the evidence, it was not enough to convict Pete by criminal court standards, but he would've lost easily in civil court.

What I don't understand is the role of an agreement. Does a player have to consent to being banned? It seems to me that Giamatti told Pete he had two options: accept a ban now on the condition of the opportunity to apply for reinstatement annually or wait until enough evidence could be accumulated to ban him without condition.

Giamatti may or may not have ever let Pete back in; we'll never know. What's clear is that Fay Vincent had and Bud Selig has no intention of doing so. As far as I'm concerned, that's on them. Nothing Giamatti did prevented Pete from applying for reinstatement. By my estimation, Pete's ongoing lies for the subsequent 15 years (even in relation to the available evidence) did way more to harm his chances of reinstatement than what Giamatti said at his press conference.

I'm all for a transparent process, but let's be real. Had Pete come forward at the time and admitted to all of his discretions would the outcome have been any different? He still would have been banned. And we still would have had two commissioners who had little to no inclination to remove the ban.

RFS62
02-02-2011, 08:40 PM
Why on earth should Pete have been able to be reinstated anyway?

He did the crime, apparently many times. It wasn't a payoff like the Black Sox scandal that got a MUCH better player banned for life.

He knew the rules. He knew what would happen if he were ever caught.

He thought he was bigger than the rules.

dougdirt
02-02-2011, 08:58 PM
Throwing him a lifeline would have been trying to work out a fair deal that would involve Rose admiting what did, getting treatment and then being allowed to manage again. Bart only offered Rose the chance to resign and never be allowed in base all ever again.


Fair Deal?! Pete was in a locker room 162+ times a year for 30 years where it says not to gamble on the game or you will be banned for life. He ignored it time after time after time after time. There is no "fair deal" for something like that. Pete thought he was bigger than the game and got everything he deserved for it. It is just a shame that this city still loves him despite how much of a disgrace he is.

westofyou
02-02-2011, 09:51 PM
Fair Deal?! Pete was in a locker room 162+ times a year for 30 years where it says not to gamble on the game or you will be banned for life. He ignored it time after time after time after time. There is no "fair deal" for something like that. Pete thought he was bigger than the game and got everything he deserved for it. It is just a shame that this city still loves him despite how much of a disgrace he is.

Pete Rose played 3562 games, he managed few too, he went to spring training and the stadium on off days to work out. Each time he entered the clubhouse he had a chance to read Rule 21.

If he did he should never had expected a fair deal.

TheNext44
02-02-2011, 10:19 PM
What every is ignoring is what Westofyou pointed out.

Baseball knew about Rose's gambling problem for decades and ignored it. They approached Rose numerous time with calls for him to stop, but never with consequences. Of course he felt he was bigger than the game, as the game treated him like he was his entire career.

Just as it is hypocritical of MLB to crack down on PED users from late 90's and early 2000's, it's was just as hypocritical of Giamatti to crack down on Pete after years if looking the other way.

RFS62
02-02-2011, 10:43 PM
What every is ignoring is what Westofyou pointed out.

Baseball knew about Rose's gambling problem for decades and ignored it. They approached Rose numerous time with calls for him to stop, but never with consequences. Of course he felt he was bigger than the game, as the game treated him like he was his entire career.

Just as it is hypocritical of MLB to crack down on PED users from late 90's and early 2000's, it's was just as hypocritical of Giamatti to crack down on Pete after years if looking the other way.


That's the kind of enabler mentality that keeps Pete and his most ardent supporters in denial.

None of that other stuff matters.

westofyou
02-02-2011, 11:14 PM
What every is ignoring is what Westofyou pointed out.

Baseball knew about Rose's gambling problem for decades and ignored it. They approached Rose numerous time with calls for him to stop, but never with consequences. Of course he felt he was bigger than the game, as the game treated him like he was his entire career.

Just as it is hypocritical of MLB to crack down on PED users from late 90's and early 2000's, it's was just as hypocritical of Giamatti to crack down on Pete after years if looking the other way.
Ignored it?

They investigated it in the early 70's.. they could not get evidence, it wasn't until he got involved in other guys lives with law problems that they finally could get evidence.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 12:02 AM
Ignored it?

They investigated it in the early 70's.. they could not get evidence, it wasn't until he got involved in other guys lives with law problems that they finally could get evidence.

If they wanted proof, all they had to do was look for it. Heck, even I saw Pete at the track in the 80's begging for more credit. Pete never even tried to hide it. All they had to do was ask his teammates. Both Morgan and Bench try to talk him into stopping. Surely there was someone out there willing to rat Pete out if MLB wanted to find someone. But they never tried in order to protect the game.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 12:16 AM
That's the kind of enabler mentality that keeps Pete and his most ardent supporters in denial.

None of that other stuff matters.

Actually it was MLB that was the enabler.

I'm not saying Pete is any less guilty. I'm saying he wa lead to believe that his behavior would be tolerated forever, since it was for decades.

Imagine a poster on Redszone uses copyrighted material over and over again for decades and is never cited for it and it's never deleted. He knows it's against the rules but is lead to believe he can get away with it.

If after decades of letting him use it, the Mods ban him for life for using copyrighted material, I would say that that was an unethical way to handle the situation. The guys not innocent, but neither are the mods in this case.

RFS62
02-03-2011, 12:18 AM
Actually it was MLB that was the enabler.

I'm not saying Pete is any less guilty. I'm saying he wa lead to believe that his behavior would be tolerated forever, since it was for decades.

Imagine a poster on Redszone uses copyrighted material over and over again for decades and is never cited for it and it's never deleted. He knows it's against the rules but is lead to believe he can get away with it.

If after decades of letting him use it, the Mods ban him for life for using copyrighted material, I would say that that was an unethical way to handle the situation. The guys not innocent, but neither are the mods in this case.


I guess I admire your resolve. But your arguments ring hollow to me, with all due respect.

If you follow that logic, it sounds like you would have been happier had they caught and banned him back when he was still playing.

westofyou
02-03-2011, 12:19 AM
If they wanted proof, all they had to do was look for it. Heck, even I saw Pete at the track in the 80's begging for more credit. Pete never even tried to hide it. All they had to do was ask his teammates. Both Morgan and Bench try to talk him into stopping. Surely there was someone out there willing to rat Pete out if MLB wanted to find someone. But they never tried in order to protect the game.

The issue was betting on his own team, correct?

Not track gambling, which was known and accepted.

If Pete was being railroaded why did his lawyers spend 3 months prior to August trying to block MLB's findings?

Why did he sign a document saying he was treated fairly in the investigation?

It's not MLB's fault that they didn't catch him sooner, chances are he wasn't breaking rule 21.

But if you think he was, then why defend him?

Tony Cloninger
02-03-2011, 01:38 AM
Actually it was MLB that was the enabler.

I'm not saying Pete is any less guilty. I'm saying he wa lead to believe that his behavior would be tolerated forever, since it was for decades.

Imagine a poster on Redszone uses copyrighted material over and over again for decades and is never cited for it and it's never deleted. He knows it's against the rules but is lead to believe he can get away with it.

If after decades of letting him use it, the Mods ban him for life for using copyrighted material, I would say that that was an unethical way to handle the situation. The guys not innocent, but neither are the mods in this case.


Who exactly are you mad at here? You say you are not a Rose defender but you seem hell bent on blaming them for what Pete did.

You seem very confused and misdirected in your anger.

Caveat Emperor
02-03-2011, 02:00 AM
Obviously not applicable in this case, but all of you who are saying "innocent people don't plead guilty" are wrong, and don't really understand the type of power the government and prosecutors have. I can promise you innocent people plead guilty all the time.

I understand very well -- and I know very well that 99.9% of the people out there would never take the rap on a life sentence unless they knew, deep down, they were guilty.

Pete plead guilty to the lifer on this one. That's damning evidence, for me, that the allegations against him were true.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 02:35 AM
The issue was betting on his own team, correct?

Not track gambling, which was known and accepted.

If Pete was being railroaded why did his lawyers spend 3 months prior to August trying to block MLB's findings?

Why did he sign a document saying he was treated fairly in the investigation?

It's not MLB's fault that they didn't catch him sooner, chances are he wasn't breaking rule 21.

But if you think he was, then why defend him?

Whose defending him? I'm criticizing MLB's handling of the whole affair.

As for the evidence, again, read James' piece on the matter. They had no real evidence that he was betting on baseball and absolutely none that he was betting on games be was involved in.

I have no idea when Pete started betting on his own games, but if it started in late 80's, then you have a good point. That would explain why Bart went after him. What I do know is that Kuhn and Ubberhoff (sp?) had huge files on him full of enough evidence to kick him out if they wanted to, that they ignored for years. Giamatti so the same evidence and decided to act on it.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 02:38 AM
I understand very well -- and I know very well that 99.9% of the people out there would never take the rap on a life sentence unless they knew, deep down, they were guilty.

Pete plead guilty to the lifer on this one. That's damning evidence, for me, that the allegations against him were true.

Only it wasn't a lifetime ban. It was to be reviewed every year and Pete honestly believed that it would be overturned at some point.

Eric_the_Red
02-03-2011, 07:30 AM
Only it wasn't a lifetime ban. It was to be reviewed every year and Pete honestly believed that it would be overturned at some point.

That is Pete's fault then, not MLB. And how do you know it wasn't reviewed yearly? It probably went something like this: Is Pete still proven to be guilty and unrepentant about betting on baseball? Yep. Ban upheld. Then it may have changed to: is Pete still admitting he broke the biggest rule in sports in order to make money? Yep. Ban upheld.

The Voice of IH
02-03-2011, 09:36 AM
My grandmother was a big Pete fan, and she basically raised me to believe that Pete was innocent no matter what. I did not believe it until he admitted to it on National TV, but I had inquires before.

Caveat Emperor
02-03-2011, 10:30 AM
Only it wasn't a lifetime ban. It was to be reviewed every year and Pete honestly believed that it would be overturned at some point.

Pete accepted a lifetime ban in late summer of 1989. He could've gone to the movies earlier that year and watched "The Field of Dreams" to find out how forgiving baseball was to another superstar on the banned list for gambling-related issues.

westofyou
02-03-2011, 10:33 AM
Whose defending him? I'm criticizing MLB's handling of the whole affair.

As for the evidence, again, read James' piece on the matter. They had no real evidence that he was betting on baseball and absolutely none that he was betting on games be was involved in.

I have no idea when Pete started betting on his own games, but if it started in late 80's, then you have a good point. That would explain why Bart went after him. What I do know is that Kuhn and Ubberhoff (sp?) had huge files on him full of enough evidence to kick him out if they wanted to, that they ignored for years. Giamatti so the same evidence and decided to act on it.

I've read James piece, I've read the Dowd Report, the report was compiled during the last few years of Ueberroth's years, and delivered the month Bart started. The first years covered in betting on baseball were 1986, some evidence showed that Pete had placed bets on the Reds during games in late April of 1987.

Now the evidence of him consorting with felons already broke rule 21, Pete's belief was that by signing the admission (which only called for reinstatement down the road (7 years was the 1st window IIRC) IF Pete could display in good faith that his ways had changed) There was never an agreement to review it on a yearly basis, there was never an agreement that Bart wouldn't state HIS opinion on the matter, there was one agreement and that's the one Pete signed.

The next night after signing it he was on the home shopping network pitching autographed wares.

A week later Giamatti was dead, having been in office for 5 months exactly he had to deal with a report that Ueberroth never wanted to deal with, because he didn't give a rats arse about the game unless he was selling its rights to the highest bidder.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 10:37 AM
anyone else working for MLB was bannned from making a u comments about Pete's guilt or innocence.


I don't believe the above is correct. I've never heard that before

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 10:40 AM
The lifeline Bart gave him was the statement that he could apply for reinstatement.

No, that's nothing special. Bart explained at that Press conference that MLB rules state that with every lifetime ban, the person in question can apply for re-instatement on an annual basis. That was not a special condition for Pete

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 10:54 AM
Whose defending him? I'm criticizing MLB's handling of the whole affair.

As for the evidence, again, read James' piece on the matter. They had no real evidence that he was betting on baseball and absolutely none that he was betting on games be was involved in.

I have no idea when Pete started betting on his own games, but if it started in late 80's, then you have a good point. That would explain why Bart went after him. What I do know is that Kuhn and Ubberhoff (sp?) had huge files on him full of enough evidence to kick him out if they wanted to, that they ignored for years. Giamatti so the same evidence and decided to act on it.

Bill James is flat out wrong. There was tons of evidence. I know that's hard to accept for some RZers considering how folks worship his stats but on Pete Rose he's been proven to be wrong. The Dowd report had a couple hundred pages of evidence including betting sheets (one of which included a Reds game), phone records and testimony of others. That's as good as it gets in this area of life. What more evidence do you need?

dfs
02-03-2011, 10:57 AM
Pete accepted a lifetime ban in late summer of 1989. He could've gone to the movies earlier that year and watched "The Field of Dreams" to find out how forgiving baseball was to another superstar on the banned list for gambling-related issues.

...but "lifetime ban" didn't exactly mean that at the time. George Stienbrenner served a couple of years on a similar lifetime ban. Mantle and Mays were slapped with lifetime bans that were removed as soon as they stopped working as casino greeters.

I'm not pretending that Pete was innocent, but the words "lifetime ban" have a very different ring to them today than they did back in 89.

westofyou
02-03-2011, 11:05 AM
From the TSN 1990 Baseball Guide:


The rule that Giamatti referred to (Rule 15c) states:No application for reinstatement from the Ineligible list may be made until 1 year has lapsed from the date of placement on the Ineligible List.

Reuvan Katz one of Rose's lawyers later confirmed that there was NO deal for reinstatement.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 11:13 AM
To those who agree with Bill James that there was no factual evidence to prove that Pete was deserving of a lifetime ban, remember this part of the agreement signed by Pete:


that Rose “acknowledges the commission has a factual basis to impose the penalty;”

Apparently Pete himself disagreed with Bill James.

By the way, has Bill James commented on his earlier stance since Pete's admission/book?

Chip R
02-03-2011, 11:14 AM
The day of the press conference announcing his ban from the game. I was pro-Pete before that and thought someone was just out to get him. Once he appeared at the press conference and announced that he accepted the ban, I felt dumb. Dumber than him. I will never forgive him for lying to me, for making me feel dumb and more importantly... breaking the #1 rule in organized sports.

I think it was then for me too. I was as pro-Pete as one could be but that was a backbreaker for me.


I don't wanna get to far off topic but does anyone have any insight why Pete is the person that he is?? I mean did his parents raise him and his siblings to be lacking in character or is he simply a product of being a spoiled, pampered athlete who along with not being very smart thought he could do no wrong?

I'm not sure it was either. Who knows why people are how they are? Guys like Don Zimmer grew up in a similar environment (in the same city) and no one likes the racetrack more than Zim. But Pete was the one who wound up banned from baseball and Zim's a beloved figure. It might sound like a cop-out but perhaps that's who Pete was/is and it would have been difficult to change that. But we also have to remember that the same things that made him into a great ballplayer may have also brought him down. Most of our great public figures are not the most well-adjusted people in real life.


Charlie Hustle - The Musical.

Awe. Some.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 11:14 AM
...but "lifetime ban" didn't exactly mean that at the time. George Stienbrenner served a couple of years on a similar lifetime ban. Mantle and Mays were slapped with lifetime bans that were removed as soon as they stopped working as casino greeters.

I'm not pretending that Pete was innocent, but the words "lifetime ban" have a very different ring to them today than they did back in 89.

No, it's the same. Some folks reconfigure their life and some don't

westofyou
02-03-2011, 11:22 AM
To those who agree with Bill James that there was no factual evidence to prove that Pete was deserving of a lifetime ban, remember this part of the agreement signed by Pete:



Apparently Pete himself disagreed with Bill James.

By the way, has Bill James commented on his earlier stance since Pete's admission/book?

James contention was on "betting on baseball. Rose admission was that he broke Rule 21 by consorting with gamblers and unsavory characters. He was afraid that if placed on the stand to defend himself he'd end up confessing to betting on baseball.

I do know James has addressed his earlier theory/work, I'd have to dig around to find it.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 12:27 PM
James contention was on "betting on baseball. Rose admission was that he broke Rule 21 by consorting with gamblers and unsavory characters. He was afraid that if placed on the stand to defend himself he'd end up confessing to betting on baseball.

I do know James has addressed his earlier theory/work, I'd have to dig around to find it.

I don't see the words "gamblers" or "unsavory characters" anywhere in Rule 21. In fact the only thing that Rule 21 specifies as deserving of a lifetime ban is betting on your own team:


(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.

Thus if Pete admits to commiting a crime that warranted a lifetime ban, what else could he possibly be referring to? Betting on the horses and Monday Night football is not banned under Rule 21.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 12:27 PM
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/p_rosea.shtml

Peter Edward Rose will conclude these proceedings before the Commissioner without a hearing and the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game. The Commissioner has determined that the best interests of Baseball are served by a resolution of this matter on the following agreed upon terms and conditions:

b. Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 12:28 PM
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/p_rosea.shtml

Peter Edward Rose will conclude these proceedings before the Commissioner without a hearing and the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game. The Commissioner has determined that the best interests of Baseball are served by a resolution of this matter on the following agreed upon terms and conditions:

b. Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement.

And your point is?

westofyou
02-03-2011, 12:34 PM
I don't see the words "gamblers" or "unsavory characters" anywhere in Rule 21. In fact the only thing that Rule 21 specifies as deserving of a lifetime ban is betting on your own team:


Then it might be cited in a different rule or it's following a previous precedent, I'd have to look through my books at home, it's what was used to suspend Durocher in the late 40's.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 12:35 PM
And your point is?

This is my point.


Peter Edward Rose will conclude these proceedings before the Commissioner without a hearing and the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game

Bart agreed not to say whether Pete bet on baseball, then five minutes into the press conference he said that he thought he did. Not a legal violation since it wasn't a formal finding, but it definitely was an unethical thing to do, considering that Pete only agreed to this because Bart promised not to declare him guilty.

westofyou
02-03-2011, 12:36 PM
But it is Rose's unfathomable squandering of his own ability, his willingness to surrender his history for the rush of the bet that will make his memory endure beyond any portrait hanging in a gallery in Cooperstown. In the end, it wasn't the courts, or a pointy-headed commissioner out to get him, or his bookie friends squealing on him, but just himself that took baseball from him.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958546,00.html

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 12:40 PM
Then it might be cited in a different rule or it's following a previous precedent, I'd have to look through my books at home, it's what was used to suspend Durocher in the late 40's.

Unless I'm mistaken, Durocher's suspension was not a lifetime ban, but a one yr thing. Lifetime bans are not the standard penalty for covorting with undesirables. Betting on your own team is the only crime I know of that Rule 21 requires a lifetime ban.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 12:40 PM
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958546,00.html

I agree with all of this, but still think Bart was unethical in his handling of the whole affair. Really not a contradiction.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 12:46 PM
Bart agreed not to say whether Pete bet on baseball, then five minutes into the press conference he said that he thought he did. Not a legal violation since it wasn't a formal finding, but it definitely was an unethical thing to do, considering that Pete only agreed to this because Bart promised not to declare him guilty.

Ethics are a matter of opinion and I don't think Bart did anything unethical. If Pete didn't want any talk of what he did then he should have had the word "formal" removed. God knows he had attorneys involved. The agreement did not clearly define what Bart could say and what he couldn't. This whole thing about questioning Bart's ethics drips of a desparate little kid kicking at the ankles of authority after he's been reprimanded.

Rojo
02-03-2011, 02:06 PM
Bill James is flat out wrong. There was tons of evidence. I know that's hard to accept for some RZers considering how folks worship his stats but on Pete Rose he's been proven to be wrong. The Dowd report had a couple hundred pages of evidence including betting sheets (one of which included a Reds game), phone records and testimony of others. That's as good as it gets in this area of life. What more evidence do you need?

There were also reams of documents about Saddam's nuclear weapon program. Most of the "evidence" is pretty thin, and it was driven by Paul Jantzen -- a pretty unsavory character himself.

FTR, I don't "worship" Rose. I don't even like him. But had I sat on a jury, I couldn't convict him.

camisadelgolf
02-03-2011, 02:11 PM
Based on what I've heard, Pete Rose was spoiled. He was an American icon and treated as such. He was surrounded by people worshiping his every move, and I don't think he ever thought the punishments given to him would be held up for his entire life. With that belief, he moved forward as if he had nothing to lose, and it has cost him dearly. He made his own bed, and now it's time for him to lie in it.

westofyou
02-03-2011, 02:35 PM
There were also reams of documents about Saddam's nuclear weapon program. Most of the "evidence" is pretty thin, and it was driven by Paul Jantzen -- a pretty unsavory character himself.

FTR, I don't "worship" Rose. I don't even like him. But had I sat on a jury, I couldn't convict him.

Evidence to convict in a criminal court, likely not.

In the court of baseball law... plenty of it.

Benny Kauff set that precedent as did the Black Sox.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 02:44 PM
There were also reams of documents about Saddam's nuclear weapon program. Most of the "evidence" is pretty thin, and it was driven by Paul Jantzen -- a pretty unsavory character himself.

FTR, I don't "worship" Rose. I don't even like him. But had I sat on a jury, I couldn't convict him.

In hindsight the evidence was spot on. If you chose not to believe it, that's on you. We don't have to play that game now. 20 years later we see that Janzen was indeed telling the truth. Personally, if I disregarded that evidence at the time, today, knowing what we know, I'd be saying "how could I have been so dense?"

RFS62
02-03-2011, 02:51 PM
I don't think the ban was the number one topic on Pete's plate at the time. He was about to cop a plea to do time on his IRS problems, IIRC. The ban was bad, but no where near jail time.

He was a bad news buffet the last year of his tenure with the Reds. A total embarrassment to baseball and the Reds.

Rojo
02-03-2011, 04:13 PM
today, knowing what we know, I'd be saying "how could I have been so dense?"

Yeah, thanks for the not-so-hidden name calling.

RedsManRick
02-03-2011, 04:33 PM
Only it wasn't a lifetime ban. It was to be reviewed every year and Pete honestly believed that it would be overturned at some point.

There is only one type of ban from baseball, a lifetime ban. As you say, Pete was given the opportunity to apply for reinstatement once annually. He's applied multiple times and been rejected each time. That his belief that he would get back in has proven to be false is on him, not MLB.

I guess for me it comes to down a few simple things:

1) Did Pete break the rule? The answer, as we now know to be the case, is yes.
2) Did baseball have sufficient evidence to enforce the rule? (note, the standard of baseball is not necessary the standard of the US Court system) My understanding is that they didn't quite have enough to ban him straight away, but went the agreement route to save Pete from ongoing investigation which they believed (and Pete likely suspected) would eventually turn up the "proof". It was a plea bargain, essentially.
3) Has MLB done anything which violates the terms of the ban?

If Pete had a verbal understanding with Giamatti that it would only last a year or that it would last until he met certain specified criteria, it's on Pete for not getting it in writing before he signed. Maybe Giamatti misled Pete, I don't know. But I do know that Pete broke the biggest rule and is now subject to the standard penalty for doing so -- the rest is just details.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 04:42 PM
There is only one type of ban from baseball, a lifetime ban. As you say, Pete was given the opportunity to apply for reinstatement once annually. He's applied multiple times and been rejected each time. That his belief that he would get back in has proven to be false is on him, not MLB.

My only point with this was that just because he agreed to lifelong ban, it does not mean that he was admitting he was guilty. He really thought that it would be revoked and his name cleared.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 04:44 PM
Yeah, thanks for the not-so-hidden name calling.

Don't take it so personally. Honestly my comment was a reflection of me. When time shows I misjudged something I think to myself "How could you have been so dense?" As a matter of fact I thought exactly that after I had rock solid proof my first wife was screwing around on me...:D

RedsManRick
02-03-2011, 04:53 PM
My only point with this was that just because he agreed to lifelong ban, it does not mean that he was admitting he was guilty. He really thought that it would be revoked and his name cleared.

Guilty or not, Pete thought this was the best chance he had to make a really messy situation potentially go away. Him agreeing to the ban certainly doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty. One can certainly see a situation where the "guilty plea" makes sense even for an innocent person. But the reality of his guilt is sort of beside the point. This conversation is about perception and right or wrong, for most people, the agreement was enough to convince them.

I can understand why you'd see Giamatti's statement as unethical, but I'm 99% sure Giamatti's position was already quite clear. Really, the entire premise of the agreement was essentially this: "I think you're guilty. If you'll accept my punishment while I'm in charge, I'll leave the door cracked for you to pick up the debate with the next guy. If not, we can keep investigating you until we have a definitive answer. Your call."

Pete did the calculus which involved realizing that his only chance at getting off was stopping the investigation. He took the chance and it didn't pay off. Pete's appeals to Giamatti supposedly agreeing to reinstate him is pretty much his only viable line of argument to Vincent and Selig.

dougdirt
02-03-2011, 04:58 PM
This is my point.



Bart agreed not to say whether Pete bet on baseball, then five minutes into the press conference he said that he thought he did. Not a legal violation since it wasn't a formal finding, but it definitely was an unethical thing to do, considering that Pete only agreed to this because Bart promised not to declare him guilty.

No, Bart agreed not to make any formal findings about it. There is a large difference between saying "I think he did it" and saying "We know he did it".

dougdirt
02-03-2011, 05:01 PM
My only point with this was that just because he agreed to lifelong ban, it does not mean that he was admitting he was guilty. He really thought that it would be revoked and his name cleared.

Why would he think that? He started betting on baseball as a player (as noted in his book). With the investigation, and of course his knowledge that he did bet on baseball, why would he ever truly believe it would be revoked and his name cleared? Because that is what he publicly said in order to keep people from actually finding out that he did bet on baseball?

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 05:08 PM
One can certainly see a situation where the "guilty plea" makes sense even for an innocent person.

I can't. I don't see what he gained by signing that agreement. I really don't :dunno:

Chip R
02-03-2011, 05:12 PM
I think if Pete had fessed up right when the Ubberroth investigation began he would have only been suspended for a (relatively) short time; perhaps a year or two. They probably would have at least tried to cover it up by saying he was hanging around with unsavory characters - much like the reasons they suspended Durocher - and that would have been that.

Roy Tucker
02-03-2011, 06:42 PM
I didn't want to believe he was guilty for a long time because of his status as a BRM hero and all that. I became a Reds fan in Rose's second year in the league so I pretty much grew up as a baseball fan with him as a Reds icon and key member of the team. It was difficult for me to believe he'd do such a thing.

But as time went by, I slowly came around to thinking "he has to be guilty". I grew up from a 12 yr. old boy into adulthood and my life perceptions and experiences changed. Like most folks, I got a little jaded and cynical (and also wise to the ways of human beings) and stopped being so naive about things. As we go through life, we acquire this thick crust of armor that protects us from human failings. I don't think there was any "ah-hah" moment for me. But by the time he confessed to his betting on the game, I had long since given up on believing his innocence.

RedsManRick
02-03-2011, 07:26 PM
I can't. I don't see what he gained by signing that agreement. I really don't :dunno:

It's this: You're going to be found guilty if this thing gets to trial. And if you're not showing remorse, they're going to throw the book at you -- lock you up and throw away the key. If you sign this plea you'll at least get a parole hearing once a year.

If Giamatti was able to convince Pete of that (and given that Pete knew he was guilt), then Pete could have seen this as his best shot to eventually get back in the game.

TheNext44
02-03-2011, 08:30 PM
No, Bart agreed not to make any formal findings about it. There is a large difference between saying "I think he did it" and saying "We know he did it".

Still a jerk move, IMO. Just like when car dealers use lawyerish technicalities in the language of their service agreement to not cover whatever just went wrong with your new car.

Legally they are correct. But I still want to kick them in the face when they explain it to me.

Big difference between what is legal and what is ethical.

RFS62
02-03-2011, 08:54 PM
Big difference between what is legal and what is ethical.


You should be telling that to Pete.

Strikes Out Looking
02-03-2011, 09:12 PM
I believed it the day in the Spring of 1989 when the investigation was leaked to the press.

Sea Ray
02-03-2011, 09:42 PM
It's this: You're going to be found guilty if this thing gets to trial. And if you're not showing remorse, they're going to throw the book at you -- lock you up and throw away the key. If you sign this plea you'll at least get a parole hearing once a year.

If Giamatti was able to convince Pete of that (and given that Pete knew he was guilt), then Pete could have seen this as his best shot to eventually get back in the game.

The way I see it Pete was going to get a parole hearing once a year anyway and if he was going to maintain his innocence, he'd be a lot more credible by not accepting a lifetime ban and by not signing a statement that says they had a factual basis for banning him for life.

If I'm innocent, no way I'd sign that.

Brutus
02-04-2011, 01:25 AM
I can't. I don't see what he gained by signing that agreement. I really don't :dunno:

Why?

If there were any indications that a lifetime ban could be reinstated, and would be reevaluated after a period of time, why wouldn't there be something to be gained by being agreeable?

Everyone is talking about how an "innocent" person wouldn't plead guilty. I didn't and don't think Pete is innocent, but just as a matter of principal, unlike a lifetime sentence where there is no possibility of parole (or at least none for 20-50 years), if Pete thought there was legitimately a chance of being reinstated after a few years, I could see plenty of reasons to agree to it.

Sea Ray
02-04-2011, 02:26 PM
Why?

If there were any indications that a lifetime ban could be reinstated, and would be reevaluated after a period of time, why wouldn't there be something to be gained by being agreeable?

Everyone is talking about how an "innocent" person wouldn't plead guilty. I didn't and don't think Pete is innocent, but just as a matter of principal, unlike a lifetime sentence where there is no possibility of parole (or at least none for 20-50 years), if Pete thought there was legitimately a chance of being reinstated after a few years, I could see plenty of reasons to agree to it.

You may have missed it when I posted it earlier so I'll post the following fact again:

Bart explained at the time that anyone slapped with a lifetime ban can apply for re-instatement on a yearly basis. That was not a "right" specially negotiated for Pete Rose. Anyone can do that.

Thus agreement or no agreement, he had a yearly "possibility of parole" as you put it.

So again I ask, what did he gain by signing that agreement?

Brutus
02-04-2011, 02:42 PM
You may have missed it when I posted it earlier so I'll post the following fact again:

Bart explained at the time that anyone slapped with a lifetime ban can apply for re-instatement on a yearly basis. That was not a "right" specially negotiated for Pete Rose. Anyone can do that.

Thus agreement or no agreement, he had a yearly "possibility of parole" as you put it.

So again I ask, what did he gain by signing that agreement?

I didn't miss that. To me, that makes it even more reason to be agreeable because it probably, in his mind, improved his chances of reinstatement upon annual appeal. I think your posting that just goes to further show why Pete might have felt compelled to cooperate with baseball.

Sea Ray
02-04-2011, 03:54 PM
To me, that makes it even more reason to be agreeable because it probably, in his mind, improved his chances of reinstatement upon annual appeal. I think your posting that just goes to further show why Pete might have felt compelled to cooperate with baseball.

Again we have the advantage of hind sight and we now know for a fact that such thinking is flawed. It didn't help him at all. If he wanted to improve his chances of reinstatement then he should have cooperated with the investigation, showed up at the hearing and made his case. Instead he stonewalled them, kept asking for more time to prepare for the hearing, until finally signing this agreement and refusing to participate in a hearing.

He got exactly the punishment he would have received if he'd not signed the agreement. Years later as Pete saw they were not receptive to re-instatement, he saw the error of his thinking and said that he wished he hadn't signed that agreement. Good to see Pete at least learned that lesson out of all this.

To dovetail this very discussion into the title of this thread,, if he'd not signed that agreement, I would have felt like he was innocent. In such a case, I don't know when I would have finally seen the light that he was guilty

Brutus
02-04-2011, 04:20 PM
Again we have the advantage of hind sight and we now know for a fact that such thinking is flawed. It didn't help him at all. If he wanted to improve his chances of reinstatement then he should have cooperated with the investigation, showed up at the hearing and made his case. Instead he stonewalled them, kept asking for more time to prepare for the hearing, until finally signing this agreement and refusing to participate in a hearing.

He got exactly the punishment he would have received if he'd not signed the agreement. Years later as Pete saw they were not receptive to re-instatement, he saw the error of his thinking and said that he wished he hadn't signed that agreement. Good to see Pete at least learned that lesson out of all this.

To dovetail this very discussion into the title of this thread,, if he'd not signed that agreement, I would have felt like he was innocent. In such a case, I don't know when I would have finally seen the light that he was guilty

As you said, we shouldn't be looking at what happened in hindsight, but what Pete was likely thinking at the time. We all wish we could make decisions based on hindsight. But that's not possible.

I don't think we'll ever know what would have happened, given Bart Giamatti's unexpected passing. If he'd been commissioner for a while, perhaps Pete would have been reinstated. No one can argue that Fay Vincent felt completely different about the situation than Bart did.

I think Pete was guilty, so that part is irrelevant for me. But I also don't think his agreeing to the banishment was proof of anything. It was a sensible sign of cooperation that may have improved his chances of reinstatement later down the road if not for the unfortunate passing.

Sea Ray
02-04-2011, 04:37 PM
As you said, we shouldn't be looking at what happened in hindsight, but what Pete was likely thinking at the time. We all wish we could make decisions based on hindsight. But that's not possible.

I don't think we'll ever know what would have happened, given Bart Giamatti's unexpected passing. If he'd been commissioner for a while, perhaps Pete would have been reinstated. No one can argue that Fay Vincent felt completely different about the situation than Bart did.

I think Pete was guilty, so that part is irrelevant for me. But I also don't think his agreeing to the banishment was proof of anything. It was a sensible sign of cooperation that may have improved his chances of reinstatement later down the road if not for the unfortunate passing.

I thought at the time "why sign this agreement if you're innocent? What did you gain"? In hindsight I see my judgement was correct and Pete's was not.

I'd argue that Fay Vincent was a buddy of Bart Giamatti and for that reason ruled as he thought Bart would have. I don't think Giamatti's passing had an ill effect on Pete's chances but I agree with you we'll never know. Where I disagree is:


No one can argue that Fay Vincent felt completely different about the situation than Bart did.

What's different?

RedsBaron
02-04-2011, 05:12 PM
I realize this is off topic, but since this thread is devoted to Pete Rose I wanted to post something I just learned about Rose while reading Tom Verducci's column on SI.com a few minutes ago.
During his career here are Rose's splits while hitting on artifical turf and on natural grass:
Turf: 7,010 at bats-2133 hits-.303 average
Grass: 7,043 at bats-2123 hits-.303 average
Those stats surprised me. I would have assumed that Rose hit somewhat better on the turf but he was remarkably consistent.

reds44
02-04-2011, 05:39 PM
Pete Rose is an embarrassment to the Reds and baseball.

Brutus
02-04-2011, 05:47 PM
I thought at the time "why sign this agreement if you're innocent? What did you gain"? In hindsight I see my judgement was correct and Pete's was not.

I'd argue that Fay Vincent was a buddy of Bart Giamatti and for that reason ruled as he thought Bart would have. I don't think Giamatti's passing had an ill effect on Pete's chances but I agree with you we'll never know. Where I disagree is:



What's different?

You've never had a fundamental disagreement with a buddy? I don't see how Fay and Bart being buddies meant that Fay felt the same way.

My understanding is that Bart was truly open to the idea of putting the issue of reinstatement back on the table for serious consideration later down the line. Fay, clearly, wanted no part of that.

Consider I was 8 years old when all this happened, so my recollection of history is based more on published reports after the fact than knowledge of it when it went down. But everything I'd ever read suggested Bart was not closed to the idea of eventual reinstatement.

RFS62
02-04-2011, 06:38 PM
I've heard that Fay blamed Bart's heart attack on having to deal with the Rose situation. I think his son Paul also held that belief.

Can't document it, but I recall comments to that effect.

I don't think Fay would have ever considered reinstating Pete, no matter how he "reconfigured his life".

Frankly, I wouldn't either. He disgraced baseball and himself as well as the Reds with his actions.

TheNext44
02-04-2011, 07:01 PM
I agree with SeaRay that this was a terrible deal for Rose. But I'm pretty sure Pete thought it was a good deal. While the clause that he would be eligible for re- instatement on a yearly basis was not necessary, he demanded that it be put into the actual contract and press release. It seemed like he reallly believed he had a chance at re-instatement.

I do remember reading a quote from his lawyer Katz that as soon as Katz heard Bart say he personally believed that Pete bet on baseball, he knew that Bart would never re-instate Rose and felt double crosssed. Which to me, mostly shows how dumb both Katz and Rose were in crafting this agreeement.

TheNext44
02-04-2011, 07:06 PM
I've heard that Fay blamed Bart's heart attack on having to deal with the Rose situation. I think his son Paul also held that belief.

Can't document it, but I recall comments to that effect.

I don't think Fay would have ever considered reinstating Pete, no matter how he "reconfigured his life".

Frankly, I wouldn't either. He disgraced baseball and himself as well as the Reds with his actions.

I recall reading the same thing. Fay held the similar line the LBJ did with Kennedy. He felt it was his obligation to continue what Bart started and act the way he felt Bart would have acted.

RedsManRick
02-04-2011, 08:08 PM
I thought at the time "why sign this agreement if you're innocent? What did you gain"? In hindsight I see my judgement was correct and Pete's was not.

It seems to me the explanation is simple:

Pete figured that he was going to end up banned at some point and was of the belief that he'd get reinstated quickly. He wanted to get it over with rather than let it continue to drag out. I don't think we'll ever know if or how much Giamatti intimated to Pete that he would be reinstated as opposed to that he merely could be. But if Pete saw it as "do your time now or do your time later", it makes sense -- particularly giving everything else that was going on in his life.

I don't mean to disparage, but I think we all know Pete is not known for either his intellect nor good judgment. We also know the extent to which Pete was willing to lie to himself to keep up appearances. It strikes me as absolutely plausible that, in his mind, the whole thing would just "blow over" and that the world would go back to adoring him quickly enough.

As for Giamatti being unethical in stating his personal belief, I'm not sure I see what was wrong about. I seriously doubt that statement was a key influencer of Vincent or Selig and I imagine both Pete and the general public already knew where Giamatti stood on the matter. Maybe it wasn't the greatest idea, but it doesn't strike me as a pivotal event.

GAC
02-05-2011, 07:35 AM
That would be when he refused to fight the charges.

Yep. If one is innocent, and especially possessing the temperament that Rose did - that fight, competitiveness, and the determination to win that motivated him his whole life - you don't "lay down" (make agreement) that easily if they didn't have the goods on you.

Sea Ray
02-05-2011, 09:41 AM
You've never had a fundamental disagreement with a buddy? I don't see how Fay and Bart being buddies meant that Fay felt the same way.

My understanding is that Bart was truly open to the idea of putting the issue of reinstatement back on the table for serious consideration later down the line. Fay, clearly, wanted no part of that.

Consider I was 8 years old when all this happened, so my recollection of history is based more on published reports after the fact than knowledge of it when it went down. But everything I'd ever read suggested Bart was not closed to the idea of eventual reinstatement.

Now we're getting into mind reading but for what it's worth, I saw it differently, like TheNext44 did:


I agree with SeaRay that this was a terrible deal for Rose. But I'm pretty sure Pete thought it was a good deal. While the clause that he would be eligible for re- instatement on a yearly basis was not necessary, he demanded that it be put into the actual contract and press release. It seemed like he reallly believed he had a chance at re-instatement.

I do remember reading a quote from his lawyer Katz that as soon as Katz heard Bart say he personally believed that Pete bet on baseball, he knew that Bart would never re-instate Rose and felt double crosssed. Which to me, mostly shows how dumb both Katz and Rose were in crafting this agreeement.

And even if you think Fay was a villian, then you have Selig. Are all these Commissioners villians? Seems to me they've all ruled very consistently

Sea Ray
02-05-2011, 10:33 AM
Pete figured that he was going to end up banned at some point and was of the belief that he'd get reinstated quickly. He wanted to get it over with rather than let it continue to drag out .

Up until that point it was Pete himself who dragged it out.



I don't mean to disparage, but I think we all know Pete is not known for either his intellect nor good judgment. We also know the extent to which Pete was willing to lie to himself to keep up appearances. It strikes me as absolutely plausible that, in his mind, the whole thing would just "blow over" and that the world would go back to adoring him quickly enough.


I think it's very possible that Pete felt that way and if he did, it was one of many things that he was dillusional about

Ron Madden
02-10-2011, 01:47 PM
From USA Today.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/02/pete-rose-documentary-hit-king-film-hall-of-fame-dvd/1

.

westofyou
02-10-2011, 02:30 PM
From USA Today.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/02/pete-rose-documentary-hit-king-film-hall-of-fame-dvd/1

.

From article:

Rose, whose most treasured baseball possessions remain his World Series rings.


From 1989:

NEW YORK - Pete Rose put what he said was his 1975 World Series ring on display at a Cincinnati bank in April to show he hadn't sold it to pay a gambling debt to a former Massachusetts bookmaker.

In his deposition to baseball investigators on April 20-21, Rose admitted it was a sham and that the ring had been sold to New Jersey collector Barry Halper.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8127256.html

RedsBaron
02-10-2011, 05:01 PM
If you look up "antonym" in the dictionary you find the words "class" and "Pete Rose."

SunDeck
02-10-2011, 09:04 PM
It seems to me the explanation is simple:



I don't mean to disparage, but I think we all know Pete is not known for either his intellect nor good judgment. We also know the extent to which Pete was willing to lie to himself to keep up appearances. It strikes me as absolutely plausible that, in his mind, the whole thing would just "blow over" and that the world would go back to adoring him quickly enough.



Pete's probably lived by the same rules that Tiger Woods did, figuring the rules that apply to others don't apply to him.

Secondly, I'd say Pete obviously doesn't have great judgment, but I wouldn't say he isn't a bright guy. Having grown up in pretty much the same place as Pete, and knowing a lot of people who knew him, his brother and dad or were acquainted with him via the book making system, I can say he's not very different than a lot of people there. There was a thriving betting culture in Price Hill, Westwood, Fairmount and Delhi when I was a kid and I had heard many stories about the gambling that went on at Trio, Five Points, Clearview, the Crow's Nest, Curve Cafe and several other bars in the area. Pete's dad was a semi pro athlete where there was often a lot of money riding on games (the Zimmer brothers were renowned for attracting huge sums in the games they played in). Last time I was up close to Pete at the Oak Hills Sports Stag 2010, he was surrounded by old friends and it was just amazing how he fit right in with all the old fellas from the neighborhood. He shares their values and other than having had access to huge amounts of money by comparison, he is no different than the guys he grew up with. He's a wily, street wise hustler who has a deep grasp of odds, handicapping, hedging and a variety of other complicated gambling terms. Not a dim bulb, by any means, but probably a gambling addict.

Ron Madden
02-11-2011, 04:05 AM
From article:

Rose, whose most treasured baseball possessions remain his World Series rings.


From 1989:

NEW YORK - Pete Rose put what he said was his 1975 World Series ring on display at a Cincinnati bank in April to show he hadn't sold it to pay a gambling debt to a former Massachusetts bookmaker.

In his deposition to baseball investigators on April 20-21, Rose admitted it was a sham and that the ring had been sold to New Jersey collector Barry Halper.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8127256.html


"The Life And Times Of Pete Rose". Wonderful in many ways. Sad or tragic in many ways.

Redlegs
02-13-2011, 08:48 PM
I think anyone who wanted to look at the evidence with an open mind would have come to the conclusion that Pete was guilty. He wasn't hanging out with the Boy Scouts of America.

As a Cincy native, I still love Pete Rose the baseball player. The same personality that made him the Hit King also proved to be his downfall as well.