Guess it boils down on whom you believe - the Pete Rose who said he never ever bet on baseball; or the Pete Rose who admitted he bet to win on every baseball game he managed; or the Pete Rose didn't bet on games he an aged that he thought he'd lose, thus giving the bookies an advantage that they already had to begin with; or the Pete Rose who is classless and shows up at every HOF induction ceremony to hawk his baseball autographs. Whether it needs proof synod a reasonable doubt or mere preponderance of the evidence, by either standard it as even proven that he doesn't deserve induction.
The Bloom is off the Rose
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
Ty Cobb slid into players with his sharpened cletes. While he wouldn't win any awards for good sportsmanship, he did nothing to harm the integrity of the game. Rose did. Case closed.
Excerpt from the Cincinnati Enquirer:
Rose wagered on up to 10 games a night at about $2,000 a game, according to the betting slips included in the documents that Dowd relied upon as well as witness testimony.
Yet Rose was involved in much more insidious activities than gambling on baseball, according to interviews and documents. Even deeper than a manager betting on his own team to win. And even darker than gambling itself.
Did Rose bet on his own team to lose? Dowd says he and his two investigators uncovered evidence that he did, "although that evidence didn't reach the standard to include in our report."
Rose wagered on up to 10 games a night at about $2,000 a game, according to the betting slips included in the documents that Dowd relied upon as well as witness testimony.
Yet Rose was involved in much more insidious activities than gambling on baseball, according to interviews and documents. Even deeper than a manager betting on his own team to win. And even darker than gambling itself.
Did Rose bet on his own team to lose? Dowd says he and his two investigators uncovered evidence that he did, "although that evidence didn't reach the standard to include in our report."
Excerpt from Cincinnati Enquirer story by James Pitcher:
Interviews with Dowd and others reveal this: Rose could have avoided his eventual conviction on tax evasion and his five months in prison – in addition to his lifetime ban from baseball – if he had only come clean in 1989.
It was fairly common knowledge back then that Giamatti was open to a suspension for Rose if the Reds manager would admit to gambling on baseball and enter treatment for his gambling addiction.
Yet, according to Dowd, it went further than that. Dowd now says he and Giamatti worked with federal prosecutors and even the FBI to work out a deal that any pending charges for tax evasion against Rose would be dropped if he came clean.
Baseball great Pete Rose leaves Marion Federal Prison Marion, Illinois Monday, Jan. 7, 1991 after being released. Rose must now report to a halfway house in Cincinnati, Ohio. In the background is a guard tower. (AP Photo/Mark Jenkins)
(Photo: ASSOCIATED PRESS)
In addition, FBI agents worked behind the scenes to ensure that Rose's gambling debts with the New Jersey loan sharks and bookies that numbered in the hundreds of thousands would be forgiven, Dowd now says.
"We never got a chance to finalize the deal or figure anything out because Pete got in his own way and his lawyers shut us down," Dowd said. "And throughout the whole process, (Rose's attorney) Reuven Katz and all of them thought they could strong arm us and Bart, this Yale professor. But they found out that Bart had steel in his backbone."
Interviews with Dowd and others reveal this: Rose could have avoided his eventual conviction on tax evasion and his five months in prison – in addition to his lifetime ban from baseball – if he had only come clean in 1989.
It was fairly common knowledge back then that Giamatti was open to a suspension for Rose if the Reds manager would admit to gambling on baseball and enter treatment for his gambling addiction.
Yet, according to Dowd, it went further than that. Dowd now says he and Giamatti worked with federal prosecutors and even the FBI to work out a deal that any pending charges for tax evasion against Rose would be dropped if he came clean.
Baseball great Pete Rose leaves Marion Federal Prison Marion, Illinois Monday, Jan. 7, 1991 after being released. Rose must now report to a halfway house in Cincinnati, Ohio. In the background is a guard tower. (AP Photo/Mark Jenkins)
(Photo: ASSOCIATED PRESS)
In addition, FBI agents worked behind the scenes to ensure that Rose's gambling debts with the New Jersey loan sharks and bookies that numbered in the hundreds of thousands would be forgiven, Dowd now says.
"We never got a chance to finalize the deal or figure anything out because Pete got in his own way and his lawyers shut us down," Dowd said. "And throughout the whole process, (Rose's attorney) Reuven Katz and all of them thought they could strong arm us and Bart, this Yale professor. But they found out that Bart had steel in his backbone."
The reason why Pete Rose is not in the HOF is not because of WHAT he did, but HOW he acted when the what was proven. If he simply owned it early on, he'd be in. He didn't though. He denied it contiually, even when it was pathetically clear he did it, and only came clean when it was time to sell a book. I really don't care what a silly museum does and I care less about what happens to people who act like Pete Rose.
Tom: I don't think one should separate Rose's accomplishment on the field vs. his betting even though other social malcontents have entered the Hall of Fame. Fortunately, I don't see Clemens, Arod, Magwire, Sosa, Bonds, et al ever getting in.
Well here is my point. The players you mention may never get in, but are on the ballot. Rose should also be on the ballot and let the voters decide.
PS: Of those players you mention above the only one I would vote for is Bonds because with or without roids he was the best player in the game.
Tom K
Pete Rose is right: Hall of Fame should vote on his sins
By Ken Davidoff
December 15, 2015 | 7:56pm
Pete Rose speaks at a news conference on Dec. 15 in Las Vegas. Photo: AP
All you need to know about Pete Rose’s news conference Tuesday in Las Vegas, the Hit King’s first public words since learning he probably will end his life as a baseball outcast, is that the most impactful words might have been the least likely you thought you would hear:
“Commissioner Manfred got it exactly right.”
Actually, Rose’s attorney Mark Rosenbaum said this, and specifically, Rosenbaum wasn’t saluting Rob Manfred for his decision to not remove Rose’s lifetime suspension from the game. Instead, the lawyer made like a gifted tailback stuck behind a lousy offensive line: He saw a tiny hole and plowed through it.
There is only one last cause worth discussing in the sad Rose saga, and it is one which Manfred, by virtue of his statement Monday, wouldn’t oppose: Rose deserves consideration for the Hall of Fame. Not necessarily induction, but for sure consideration.
“In my view, the considerations that should drive a decision on whether an individual should be allowed to work in Baseball are not the same as those that should drive a decision on Hall of Fame eligibility,” Manfred wrote, and those words prompted Rosenbaum’s aforementioned endorsement.
Manfred wrote one hell of an explanation, replete with concrete examples and stone-cold logic and free of political spin, to defend his decision. In fact, the commissioner displayed such a firm grasp of what’s what, that … he must know what a mistake the sport committed by aligning with DraftKings, right? Let’s hope that mistake gets rectified soon.
Yet a far greater, more sinister error took place in 1991, when the Hall of Fame took it upon itself to remove all banned players from its ballot … two years after Rose received his ban for gambling on baseball. That was, of course, no coincidence. The Hall wanted to avoid the potential embarrassment of a Rose induction. Is anything more embarrassing, though, than opposition to due process?
Rose spoke too on Tuesday and exemplified why Manfred made the right decision. The 74-year-old called himself a “recreational gambler” in explaining why he still bets legally on games.
“I should probably be the commissioner of baseball, the way I talk about the game,” he said jokingly.
He got emotional as he spoke of his desire to be “friends with baseball,” but the tragic truth is you won’t find a less trustworthy friend than Pete Rose.
I don’t think Rose belongs in Cooperstown, as he committed baseball’s worst sin. However, he sure as heck deserves to have his candidacy judged.
Hall of Fame President Jeff Idelson told MLB Network on Tuesday “nothing has changed” on the Rose eligibility front. Yet the Hall is open to change. It has tweaked its voting process twice in the past two years.
Rose deserved no forgiveness from Manfred. From the Hall, though, it is Rose who is owed the apology. It isn’t too late.
By Ken Davidoff
December 15, 2015 | 7:56pm
Pete Rose speaks at a news conference on Dec. 15 in Las Vegas. Photo: AP
All you need to know about Pete Rose’s news conference Tuesday in Las Vegas, the Hit King’s first public words since learning he probably will end his life as a baseball outcast, is that the most impactful words might have been the least likely you thought you would hear:
“Commissioner Manfred got it exactly right.”
Actually, Rose’s attorney Mark Rosenbaum said this, and specifically, Rosenbaum wasn’t saluting Rob Manfred for his decision to not remove Rose’s lifetime suspension from the game. Instead, the lawyer made like a gifted tailback stuck behind a lousy offensive line: He saw a tiny hole and plowed through it.
There is only one last cause worth discussing in the sad Rose saga, and it is one which Manfred, by virtue of his statement Monday, wouldn’t oppose: Rose deserves consideration for the Hall of Fame. Not necessarily induction, but for sure consideration.
“In my view, the considerations that should drive a decision on whether an individual should be allowed to work in Baseball are not the same as those that should drive a decision on Hall of Fame eligibility,” Manfred wrote, and those words prompted Rosenbaum’s aforementioned endorsement.
Manfred wrote one hell of an explanation, replete with concrete examples and stone-cold logic and free of political spin, to defend his decision. In fact, the commissioner displayed such a firm grasp of what’s what, that … he must know what a mistake the sport committed by aligning with DraftKings, right? Let’s hope that mistake gets rectified soon.
Yet a far greater, more sinister error took place in 1991, when the Hall of Fame took it upon itself to remove all banned players from its ballot … two years after Rose received his ban for gambling on baseball. That was, of course, no coincidence. The Hall wanted to avoid the potential embarrassment of a Rose induction. Is anything more embarrassing, though, than opposition to due process?
Rose spoke too on Tuesday and exemplified why Manfred made the right decision. The 74-year-old called himself a “recreational gambler” in explaining why he still bets legally on games.
“I should probably be the commissioner of baseball, the way I talk about the game,” he said jokingly.
He got emotional as he spoke of his desire to be “friends with baseball,” but the tragic truth is you won’t find a less trustworthy friend than Pete Rose.
I don’t think Rose belongs in Cooperstown, as he committed baseball’s worst sin. However, he sure as heck deserves to have his candidacy judged.
Hall of Fame President Jeff Idelson told MLB Network on Tuesday “nothing has changed” on the Rose eligibility front. Yet the Hall is open to change. It has tweaked its voting process twice in the past two years.
Rose deserved no forgiveness from Manfred. From the Hall, though, it is Rose who is owed the apology. It isn’t too late.
FWIW Rose stated yesterday in his presser here in Las Vegas that he gambled when he was a player and manager. For those who wanted proof he gambled as a player I believe that they call that an admission against interest or in a criminal case a confession. Case closed.
Similar threads
