Originally Posted by dougdirt
I don't think anything they did was shady. They clearly had the evidence. They weren't supposed to tell the truth about it and they did? That isn't shady IMO. The report was going to come out even if they didn't say anything. People were going to ask questions. Pete wasn't just going to all of a sudden vanish from the game and no one was going to ask why?
you dont think paying a bookie enough money to assure that he never has to work again is not shady? basically, MLB paid a criminal(s) money to tell his side of the story....then a month after the bookies original interview with Dowds associates, paid him again for more testimony.....to me that is shady. MLB basically gave the bookie full authority to spice up his story for more money knowing that Pete truly could not fight any story he told because Pete did in fact use this bookie and Pete knew no one would believe him now......That is shady.
You want to pay me for some dirt I have on Pete then fine, pay me....but paying me enough to assure that I live well from now on is a little much....to me that screams of something fishy.
There is a reason law enforcement only pays their confidential informants a small amount of money and only pay more based on actual convictions....its because a criminal will lie if he thinks the lie will gain him more money. Bart Giamatti authorized the payment to more than one criminal in the investigation of Pete Rose....those statements were never used by the govt or the IRS, why? because the govt and the IRS knew those statements were nothing more than hogwash and they would never hold in a court of law......yet MLB used those same statements to ban a guy for life.
please do not excuse my defense of Pete as a pass to what he done....he needed to be punished, he was guilty of betting on baseball and I have no complaints at all with that.....I am simply implying that the manner in which MLB investigated Pete was shady and more than likely full of errors and lies..