Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, November 26, 2011

NYBD: Silva: Selig’s Final Act Should Be Reinstating Pete Rose

Some shouted “R. Budd Selig, don’t do this!”  He asked people to “please leave the chat room if this will offend you.”

If Bud Selig is true to his word and retires at the end of 2012, he should end his commissionership with the reinstatement of Pete Rose. It would be a fitting final chapter to a period where the game transformed for the better. It would also dispel the label that he’s a cowardly commissioner that rules by consensus and has yet to make a controversial decision, even if it were for the better. Remember, steroid testing was more a result of political pressure than Selig’s courage and vision.  Personally, I would gain a ton of respect for a man whom I believe has been in the right place at the right time in the games history. A lot of his success has been due to him standing on an oil field. Dealing with the Pete Rose issue might be his toughest and most controversial decision yet.

...The clock is ticking Bud. Is the new CBA going to be the cherry on top of your legacy? Not a bad encore, but you could do better. Do you want to go down as the guy that benefitted from the inevitable growth of the game? Is your stewardship only about committees and politics or are you ready to make a real decision? One that could potentially spark debate around the game like only steroids has in the past. Reinstate Pete Rose. Show us that you have at least one fastball in you after nearly 20 years of throwing us nothing but proverbial junk balls.

Repoz Posted: November 26, 2011 at 10:24 PM | 162 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business, hall of fame, history, media, phillies, reds

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. cardsfanboy Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:36 PM (#4002199)
I find myself agreeing with SBB....

It would shock me to find Pete Rose betted against his own team. Every indication of the character(what little there is) of Pete Rose is as an ultimate competitor. I find it hard to believe someone like that would ever bet against himself.

And as SBB points out, I don't back punishing people for crimes that they might have committed.

and of course what I do find funny is that every year the owners of the two world series teams make a bet against each other, and nobody bats an eye. Yes it's usually just a token bet, but it still shows the culture of athletes and teams on how they handle themselves. If you are betting publicly, why would there be any reason to think you aren't betting privately?
   102. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:40 PM (#4002202)
And as SBB points out, I don't back punishing people for crimes that they might have committed.

But that's not what's happening.

The "death penalty" in baseball applies to betting on any game in which you have a duty to perform, regardless of which way you bet.

It would shock me to find Pete Rose betted against his own team. Every indication of the character(what little there is) of Pete Rose is as an ultimate competitor. I find it hard to believe someone like that would ever bet against himself.

Except if he got on a losing streak and all of a sudden was into his bookie for $500,000, and the bookie threatens to expose him to the press (ending all future earning potential).
   103. Ron J Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:42 PM (#4002204)
#97 I've had lawyers tell me that Giamatti was speaking for himself and not for MLB and that it didn't break the agreement. I won't argue the law with lawyers but I agree with you it sure broke the spirit of the agreement.

I have little doubt that he could have sued to have the agreement put aside. The problem for Rose is that leaves him facing a hearing in front of Giamatti -- having to answer to the allegations in the Dowd report.
   104. cardsfanboy Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:46 PM (#4002211)
But that's not what's happening.

The "death penalty" in baseball applies to betting on any game in which you have a duty to perform, regardless of which way you bet.


I know that, I think it's a stupid rule, and a draconian over reaction. I understand why the rule is there, I understand that Pete Rose knew about the rule and that he got the exact punishment he should have expected. I just don't agree with it. As someone pointed out you are giving the same punishment for someone who committed murder as someone who committed assault. Where is the encouragement to stop at the assault, you have already passed the point of no return, so why not go all the way?

I know I'm in the minority in this opinion, but I do think that MLB's rule on gambling is a ridiculous overreaction.
   105. Ron J Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#4002215)
#99 Old ground here, but Dowd has said that MLB closed down his investigation before he could fully investigate whether Rose had bet against the Reds. And that he thought he was close to actually finding evidence that Rose in fact did bet against the Reds.

The problem here is that Dowd always sounds like a loon when he talks about Rose. As for instance his speculation as to why Rose would never answer questions from MLB. It would get him killed you see. He'd be providing evidence against Mafia members (since the FBI could get his testimony to MLB and then use it against the mobsters)
   106. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#4002216)
I know I'm in the minority in this opinion, but I do think that MLB's rule on gambling is a ridiculous overreaction.

But the point is, once you know the guy's betting on his team, how do you know he always bets to win? Or doesn't signal info to gambler by which games he bets or the amounts?

You'll never get a full accounting of every bet, and to retain the integrity of the competition, it's better to overreact than underreact.

There's nothing lost to baseball, or the individual player, or the world by a player not being able to bet on his team to win. There's a lot to lose from that betting.
   107. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:53 PM (#4002218)
The "death penalty" in baseball applies to betting on any game in which you have a duty to perform, regardless of which way you bet.

Rose didn't admit to that (he neither admitted nor denied it), and the agreement he signed with the Commissioner allowed him the right to apply for reinstatement.

He was not given an unconditional "death penalty."(**)

By treating them as illusory, baseball has violated the words and spirit of (1) the clause stating that Rose was not making admissions, and (2) the provision permitting Rose to apply for reinstatement. All the post hoc blathering about the "sanctity" of Rule 21 and all the rest is just reductionist hoo-hoo having nothing to do with the actual Rose investigation.

(**) Nor are the provisions of Rule 21 enforced with snapperesque literalism, as made abundantly clear in the case of Torii Hunter -- slapped on the wrist for conduct warranting an automatic (at least) three years out.
   108. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:56 PM (#4002221)
SBB,

What exactly is to be gained by reinstating Rose? His conduct in this affair has been nothing but exerable. Lying the whole way, changing his story, zero contrition, pimping himself out to make a buck at every opportunity.

All MLB would have to gain was the opportunity for future embarassment at Rose's hands.
   109. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:57 PM (#4002223)
I know I'm in the minority in this opinion, but I do think that MLB's rule on gambling is a ridiculous overreaction.

It's a real slippery slope. What if the player loses and is in debt over his head? Or just prefers to pay off the bookies with something other than cash?

Rose didn't bet on every Reds game, raising the prospect he managed to win his bets rather than to win the most games over the season. You just can't tolerate this and expect the public to treat the games as meaningful. Rose should never be reinstated. Period.
   110. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 28, 2011 at 04:59 PM (#4002225)
Rose didn't admit to that (he neither admitted nor denied it)

Rose has admitted he bet on Reds games. Is it being suggested that Pete lied when he finally "came clean"?
   111. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:00 PM (#4002227)
But the point is, once you know the guy's betting on his team, how do you know he always bets to win?

You investigate it, with wide writ -- the type that Giamatti gave Dowd.

As Giamatti explained it in his post-settlement, "This sorry episode began last February when baseball received firm allegations that Mr. Rose bet on baseball games and on the Reds' games. Such grave charges could not and must never be ignored. Accordingly, I engaged and Mr. Ueberroth appointed John Dowd as Special Counsel to investigate these and other allegations that might arise and to pursue the truth wherever it took him."
   112. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:00 PM (#4002229)
It's a real slippery slope. What if the player loses and is in debt over his head? Or just prefers to pay off the bookies with something other than cash?

Rose didn't bet on every Reds game, raising the prospect he managed to win his bets rather than to win the most games over the season. You just can't tolerate this and expect the public to treat the games as meaningful. Rose should never be reinstated. Period.


Exactly.

I mean it's not like we didn't have prominent players throwing games well into the 1920's. This is not some mythical evil.
   113. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:02 PM (#4002233)
You investigate it, with wide writ -- the type that Giamatti gave Dowd.

As Giamatti explained it in his post-settlement, "This sorry episode began last February when baseball received firm allegations that Mr. Rose bet on baseball games and on the Reds' games. Such grave charges could not and must never be ignored. Accordingly, I engaged and Mr. Ueberroth appointed John Dowd as Special Counsel to investigate these and other allegations that might arise and to pursue the truth wherever it took him."


It's still unknowable. You're going to track down every bookie, every straw-bettore he may have used, and nowadays, every internet gambling operation, and they'll all cooperate and tell you the truth?

C'mon now, be serious.
   114. cardsfanboy Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:02 PM (#4002235)
But the point is, once you know the guy's betting on his team, how do you know he always bets to win? Or doesn't signal info to gambler by which games he bets or the amounts?

You'll never get a full accounting of every bet, and to retain the integrity of the competition, it's better to overreact than underreact.

There's nothing lost to baseball, or the individual player, or the world by a player not being able to bet on his team to win. There's a lot to lose from that betting.


again, I understand what the thought process is there. I just don't agree with it. I'm fine with banning him from a job in MLB again, I think it's utterly silly that he can't be a guest of the Reds without getting special permission from the commissioner's office.

and of course, if there is even 30% of the people in the sport not betting on the games, it would surprise the crap out of me. That includes owners, coaches, trainers etc. I've never met an athlete of any ilk, that wasn't willing to bet on the outcome of an event he's participating in.
   115. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:03 PM (#4002236)
What exactly is to be gained by reinstating Rose?

Fairness, consistency, and a sense of proportion.

Plus a victory for study and thought and effort over attention deficit and groupthink. The former could use a win.
   116. Ron J Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:09 PM (#4002244)
#104 The advantage for baseball of the way that the rule is now is that they aren't put in the position of having to demonstrate damage. That's a tricky proposition (as is finding out all of a player's betting activities).

Given that baseball doesn't have subpoena powers or the power to compel truthful testimony, simplicity is a virtue. Particularly since they have nothing to gain by allowing players to gamble.

Now I have argued that the penalties don't have to be as severe as they are. That if Giamatti had turned the effective penalty for gambling into a 7 year ban that wouldn't have created a danger to baseball. 7 years will pretty much destroy a career (and you can couple it with conditions as required before the person is allowed back in the game.)

As I've pointed out before, Paulo Rossi would likely have been permanently banned if soccer had baseball's rules. It survived his reinstatement.

On the other hand, since it became clear that MLB would enforce its rules as written major league baseball has had very little problems with player (or manager) involvement in gambling (or match fixing) and most major sports have had issue. Given what's going on right now with test cricket it's unlikely that MLB would even consider changing their rules. (On the other hand, the players involved are going to prison. They may or may not have a career after that, but actual jail time counts very heavily in terms of any cost benefit analysis a potential match fixer may do. They aren't going away for a long time, but it still has to suck)
   117. smileyy Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:17 PM (#4002252)
Every indication of the character(what little there is) of Pete Rose is as an ultimate competitor. I find it hard to believe someone like that would ever bet against himself.


And I wouldn't be surprised to find that lack of character able to trump his competitiveness.
   118. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:23 PM (#4002262)
Rose wasn't sanctioned for gambling -- though he has been, unfairly, post hoc.

He was sanctioned, as Giamatti's statement noted, for procedural failings: "[C]hoosing not to come to a hearing before me, and by choosing not to proffer any testimony or evidence contrary to the evidence and information contained in the report of the Special Counsel to the Commissioner[.]" The Settlement Agreement makes this clear as well.
   119. Srul Itza Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:26 PM (#4002267)
It's obvious to the unbiased that the anti-Rose case is an ignoble admixture of punishment for crimes he didn't commit (**); his amp use; his lack of couth; Rule 21, Judge Landis, and baseball poetry; and a naive romanticism that posits an entirely Platonic balance between balancing today's game and the "future."


This, of course, completely ignores the fact that Rose lied about betting on baseball, again and again and again, constantly defaming those who had proven that he had, in fact, bet on baseball. Not just for years, but for decades.

The Anti-Rose case is about the fact that Rose is a completely amoral and utterly dishonest waste of flesh.
   120. Srul Itza Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:28 PM (#4002270)
The problem here is that Dowd always sounds like a loon when he talks about Rose.


Then again, probably nobody knows Rose better than Dowd, or was excoriated and defamed more often by Rose than Dowd.
   121. Srul Itza Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:30 PM (#4002272)
Rose didn't admit to that


Not at the time, but later on, when he ran out of making money by denying gambling, he then made money by admitting gambling.

Of course, maybe he was lying the second time. Cling to that belief.
   122. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:31 PM (#4002274)
This, of course, completely ignores the fact that Rose lied about betting on baseball, again and again and again, constantly defaming those who had proven that he had, in fact, bet on baseball. Not just for years, but for decades.

That's mob and herd stuff, having nothing to do with his agreement with baseball.

The Anti-Rose case is about the fact that Rose is a completely amoral and utterly dishonest waste of flesh.

So's that.
   123. Srul Itza Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:34 PM (#4002279)
That's mob and herd stuff, having nothing to do with his agreement with baseball.


But everything to do with whether he deserves reinstatement, which was never automatic.

But keep on slinging insults and ignoring the facts. It's what you're good at.

And I'm done with your trollery. Back on ignore.
   124. phredbird Posted: November 28, 2011 at 05:57 PM (#4002303)
He should never even sniff readmission or the HoF. If you bet on a game where you have a duty to perform, you're done. Period.

This, it is true, is consistent with the moral exactitude and certainty frequently found in your writings.


snapper comes in for a lot of sh i t on this board, and rightly so for all i care, but in this case he's got it. games and sports are hermetic compared to real life and this kind of 'exactitude and certainty' is necessary for them to survive as those who indulge in them intended them to survive.
   125. philistine Posted: November 28, 2011 at 06:08 PM (#4002310)
I know I'm in the minority in this opinion, but I do think that MLB's rule on gambling is a ridiculous overreaction.


I too am in that minority.

Selig has done much worse things to spoil the fairness of the game. His final act should be a painful suicide.
   126. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 06:24 PM (#4002328)

Selig has done much worse things to spoil the fairness of the game. His final act should be a painful suicide.


But none of his changes affect what the fans are paying to see; a game contested on the field by players trying their best to win.

That's the fundamental product. Gambling taints that like nothing else.
   127. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: November 28, 2011 at 06:37 PM (#4002341)
I'll never understand this idea that Pete Rose will do all these terrible things but he would never bet against the Reds. A lack of familiarity with weapons technology and modern Human Resources applications is all that has kept Pete Rose from achieving a Scorpio level of villainy.
   128. smileyy Posted: November 28, 2011 at 06:44 PM (#4002349)
Selig has done much worse things to spoil the fairness of the game.


I'd be interested to see the list of things you consider to impact fairness more than gambling on your own team.
   129. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 06:50 PM (#4002358)
I'll never understand this idea that Pete Rose will do all these terrible things but he would never bet against the Reds.

He didn't do anything that terrible.
   130. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#4002363)
He didn't do anything that terrible.

In baseball terms, he did. He bet on a game involving his own team.

It's the worst violation possible, short of throwing a game. It's the one rule they post in the damn clubhouse.
   131. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 06:59 PM (#4002372)
It's the worst violation possible, short of throwing a game.

But analyzed rationally, it isn't "terrible." No one denies that he violated Rule 21.(**) But Rule 21 forbids things that aren't "terrible."

And the "short of throwing a game" is doing a fair bit of work there, no?

It's the one rule they post in the damn clubhouse.


Which means Torii Hunter saw it, too, but didn't get anything approaching the stated punishment for his violation.

(**) Though MLB never formally found that he did.
   132. Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature Posted: November 28, 2011 at 07:08 PM (#4002385)
The thing I don't understand from those who support Rose's reinstatement is what exactly Rose has done since the banishment to suggest he deserves any sort of mercy. He has gone out of his way to upstage the HoF inductions, he has spent time in prison, he has changed his story about whether or not he bet on the Reds...I don't see any argument that this is a "rehabilitated" person.

He broke a rule with a defined punishment and is now suffering that punishment. To that I say "good riddance."
   133. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 07:10 PM (#4002387)

(**) Though MLB never formally found that he did.


He's banned for betting on the Reds while he managed and he's admitted he did that.

That's the reality, regardless of what the actual documentation he agreed to sign says.

Edit: They don't need to "formally" find anything. He admitted it.
   134. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 07:18 PM (#4002401)
That's the reality, regardless of what the actual documentation he agreed to sign.

Right ... that's the problem.

Baseball pulled a bait-and-switch on him, as noted above. Agreed not to find that he bet on the Reds, signed an agreement to that effect, agreed that his right to seek reinstatement wouldn't be impacted -- they didn't even set a time that he'd have to serve without that right -- then effectively reneged on the agreement.
   135. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 07:34 PM (#4002417)
Right ... that's the problem.

Baseball pulled a bait-and-switch on him, as noted above. Agreed not to find that he bet on the Reds, signed an agreement to that effect, agreed that his right to seek reinstatement wouldn't be impacted -- they didn't even set a time that he'd have to serve without that right -- then effectively reneged on the agreement.


But who cares?

He did bet on the Reds, and is receiving the appropriate punishiment. Justice is served.

There's a reason to care about procedural justice whent the gov't is involved, b/c of the potential for abuse of power. With MBL, who cares about procedure?

He did the crime and is doing the time.
   136. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 07:43 PM (#4002427)
Edit: They don't need to "formally" find anything. He admitted it.

No, he didn't. It's right there in the Rose/Giamatti Agreement: "Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game."

The sanctions imposed by Giamatti explicitly were not based on Rose betting on baseball. That's also right there in the Agreement.

Many years later, in an entirely informal context, he "admitted" it, but so what? It had nothing to do with the agreement he signed, and baseball had already prejudged his reinstatement petitions DOA.

Not to mention the fact that during that time, voices in and out of baseball were saying, "He's never going to get reinstated unless he admits that he bet on baseball." (**) Then when he did "admit" it, many of the same voices said, "Well, how can we reinstate someone who admitted he bet on baseball?" and extreme voices said "If he admitted he bet on the Reds, how do we know he didn't bet against the Reds, so how can we reinstate him?"

It was essentially the same kabuki dance the hypocritical chorus chanted at steroid suspects.

(**) When done by MLB, also a violation of the spirit, if not words, of the '89 Agreement.
   137. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 07:46 PM (#4002429)
There's a reason to care about procedural justice whent the gov't is involved, b/c of the potential for abuse of power. With MBL, who cares about procedure?

OK, so at least you're admitting that MLB reneged on its agreement with Rose and abused its power.

That's a start anyway.
   138. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 07:52 PM (#4002434)
Many years later, in an entirely informal context, he "admitted" it, but so what? It had nothing to do with the agreement he signed, and baseball had already prejudged his reinstatement petitions DOA.

That's what I meant.

OK, so at least you're admitting that MLB reneged on its agreement with Rose and abused its power.

That's a start anyway.


I have no idea, or interest in whether they did or not. The Black Sox were banned despite being acquitted in court. Who cares?

I'm 100% certain Pete Rose bet on Reds' games while he managed them, and the lifetime ban is the punishment the rules call for.

All the agreement is is a plea bargain. I don't take a murderer's agreement with the DA to plead to manslaughter as evidence that he's not a murderer.

Again, unless we have real concerns about governmental abuse, I don't care one whit for procedural justice.
   139. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 28, 2011 at 08:11 PM (#4002451)
He did bet on the Reds, and is receiving the appropriate punishiment.

Rose claimed that he bet on the Reds "every game", but Dowd only found evidence of 52 bets in 1987. Obviously Rose's moral case only holds if what he said was 100% factual, not 30%.
   140. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 28, 2011 at 08:20 PM (#4002457)
Many years later, in an entirely informal context, he "admitted" it, but so what? It had nothing to do with the agreement he signed,

I would be fine with MLB reinstating Rose (per the agreement).

Then, 2 minutes later, announcing that since he admitted to betting on baseball games he was involved in, banning him from MLB and the HOF for life.

The reason I wait two minutes is so he can call up his Vegas bookie and put a sizeable bet on himself making the HOF, and then scream in frustration when the second verdict comes down afterwards.
   141. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 28, 2011 at 08:21 PM (#4002458)
Now that we are on Page 2 I just wanted to say - "NO!".

A) He signed an agreement which has been honored by MLB*
B) He broke the rule

This isnot hard.

*Breaking the "spirit" is silly, you either follow or don't and they hav e - better than Pete followed baseball's rules, that is for sure.
   142. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 08:29 PM (#4002462)
Obviously Rose's moral case only holds if what he said was 100% factual, not 30%.

As opposed to moral exemplar, and fellow resident of the permanently ineligible list -- and, to Andy, a clear Hall of Famer -- George M. Steinbrenner III.

Of course, as he showed in buying his way out of his felony convictions, The Boss knew how to get himself out of a pickle.

Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays were also permanently ineligible for a few years, too, for their casino affiliations. A plurality, if not a majority (I'm not going to tally it up), of people on the permanently ineligible list were reinstated by baseball.
   143. Morty Causa Posted: November 28, 2011 at 08:45 PM (#4002471)
It's not accurate to say that Rose admitted to nothing

Rose admitted there was a factual basis for the ban:

Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise.


Rose copped a plea and threw himself on the mercy of the court (the commissioner). That's why there was no actual adjudication of the underlying issue.

Does anyone think that had this gone to "trial" Rose would have been exonerated?
   144. Ron J Posted: November 28, 2011 at 08:58 PM (#4002476)
#136 It is worth noting though that Rose acknowledges that there's a factual basis for a permanent ban:

4. Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise. He also agrees he will not institute any legal proceedings of any nature against the Commissioner of any of his representatives, either Major League or any Major League Club.


Now there aren't many actions that'll draw a permanent ban. Feel free to speculate on what it was if it wasn't betting on Reds games.

As to his appeal for reinstatement, Bud took his own sweet time in responding (over two years before he made a public statement on the matter -- but then Rose waited 14 years before making his appeal in the first place) but his response seems spot on to me: "Pete did accept a voluntary lifetime suspension from Dr. Giamatti. There hasn't been any new evidence since then."

(this by the way is the statement of Bud's I referred to earlier -- using "lifetime" instead of "permanent")

Also note that Joe Morgan and Robin Roberts tried to broker a deal that would lead to his becoming eligible for a HOF vote on condition that he come clean on his having bet on the Reds (this in the wake of Mike Schidt's HOF acceptance speech). Warren Spahn, Eddie Mathews and Bob Feller led the, "No, Hell no" group and the proposal died before Rose ever got a chance to respond. So at least Feller and company weren't going with the "confess and we might forgive" route.
   145. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 09:00 PM (#4002478)
Rose admitted there was a factual basis for the ban:

And there was. He indeed failed to show up for the hearing and proffer evidence -- the predicates for his agreed-upon placement on the ineligible list, with the right to apply for reinstatement.

He wasn't sanctioned for betting on baseball, or even for violating the substantive provisions of Rule 21.

and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise.

And he never has challenged the penalty. Only baseball reneged on the deal. To add to the two provisions already mentioned, Rose also agreed to the resolution of the matter thinking he'd still be eligible for the Hall of Fame. His lawyers should have gotten a sign-off that that wouldn't be taken from him, too, but they probably didn't realize how entirely baseball would violate the agreement.

Does anyone think that had this gone to "trial" Rose would have been exonerated?

We'll never know. He signed away his right to do that, in exchange for what turned out to be entirely illusory promises and representations from the other side.
   146. Morty Causa Posted: November 28, 2011 at 09:10 PM (#4002486)
If you don't read the actual text to what was agreed to by Rose and the Commissioner, you can be fooled by the rhetorical flourishes of Rose partisans. Read it, though, and that's not possible. Rose gave it all away--and everything that has come to light substantiates that he had reason to give it all away. His big mistakes was in not following through with some mea culpa ceremony involving contrition and penance; instead he tried to take it all back, playing the victim, despite all past evidence and all emerging evidence that contradicted his claims of innocence. Finally, he tried to intimidate the Commissioner through a PR campaign that backfired on him. He played it like he was calling the Commissioner's bluff, when the Commissioner had no need to bluff--he had a royal flush.
   147. . Posted: November 28, 2011 at 09:17 PM (#4002491)
If you don't read the actual text to what was agreed to by Rose and the Commissioner, you can be fooled by the rhetorical flourishes of Rose partisans. Read it, though, and that's not very possible. Rose gave it all away--and everything that has come to light substantiates that he had reason to give it all away. His big mistakes was in not following through with some mea culpa ceremony involving contrition and penance; instead he tried to take it all back, playing the victim, despite all past evidence and all emerging evidence that contradicted his claims of innocence. Finally, he tried to intimidate the Commissioner through a PR campaign that backfired on him. He played it like he was calling the Commissioner's bluff, when the Commissioner had no need to bluff--he had a royal flush.

It's the exact opposite, Morty. By reading it (properly), you realize how little Rose agreed to and how blatantly baseball violated it.

His big mistake was lawyers that didn't get the Hall of Fame on board and that trusted baseball too much. They should have got something in there adding procedural teeth to how reinstatement would be considered and that explicitly laid out how baseball was to go about deciding.

As noted by Ron and others though, the writing was probably just papering a wink-wink that if Rose sat out 6 or 7 years, and kept relatively quiet, he'd be welcomed back (the same way Steinbrenner was or, as many would say, Jordan was to the NBA after he "retired"). Then Giamatti dropped dead, people started thinking the Rose thing caused him to keel, Rose got convicted of a felony, and the whole thing got thrown into celebrityville and its "formula" for true "public redemption" and all the rest -- which a guy like Pete Rose is utterly incapable of fulfilling.
   148. Morty Causa Posted: November 28, 2011 at 09:49 PM (#4002502)
You think that Rose agreed to a permanent ban because they had the goods on him for missing a hearing without a note from his mama? You know any accused who was sentence to life in prison, and signed onto a plea that specified exactly that, merely for not obeying a court order to appear? You think that's what "factual basis" refers to? :>)

Poor, Poor Pitiful Me
   149. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 28, 2011 at 09:50 PM (#4002505)
He indeed failed to show up for the hearing and proffer evidence -- the predicates for his agreed-upon placement on the ineligible list, with the right to apply for reinstatement. He wasn't sanctioned for betting on baseball, or even for violating the substantive provisions of Rule 21.

That's nonsense. Rose wouldn't go thourgh with the hearing because the overwhelming evidence of his guilt would have been further publicized. It's been a long time since I read the Dowd report but there was tons of evidence. All the lowlife accusers were interviewed separately; they all testified consistently; and their testimony was corroborated by Pete's telephone and bank records. Rose's denials were contradicted by those same phone and bank records. There is simply no case for Rose not being guilty of (at least) everything in the Dowd Report, which he eventually admitted himself.
   150. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 10:56 PM (#4002535)
Rose wasn't sanctioned for gambling -- though he has been, unfairly, post hoc.

He was sanctioned, as Giamatti's statement noted, for procedural failings: "[C]hoosing not to come to a hearing before me, and by choosing not to proffer any testimony or evidence contrary to the evidence and information contained in the report of the Special Counsel to the Commissioner[.]" The Settlement Agreement makes this clear as well.
Come on; from anyone else this might be grade A trolling, but from the guy who brought us the Burlington Coat Factory Museum and Jack Morris Down The Stretch treats, this is weak sauce.

"Choosing not to refute the evidence against me" is not a "procedural" failing.
   151. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 28, 2011 at 11:07 PM (#4002539)
His big mistake was lawyers that didn't get the Hall of Fame on board and that trusted baseball too much. They should have got something in there adding procedural teeth to how reinstatement would be considered and that explicitly laid out how baseball was to go about deciding.
The problem is that you're falsely pretending that the so-called "right to apply for reinstatement" was a concession to Rose, as opposed to simply a truism that applies to every person made ineligible by baseball, no matter how bad their crime: they can ask for reinstatement. The Black Sox, Steinbrenner, Jeffrey Maier.

Every criminal defendant has the right to appeal, say, on the grounds that the evidence against them was illegally obtained. Generally speaking, criminal defendants who plead guilty forfeit the right to file such an appeal. Sometimes, however, a defendant comes to a plea agreement in which he pleads guilty but explicitly reserves the right to appeal that the evidence should have been suppressed. When he does the latter, it does not mean that anybody agrees to take the appeal seriously, or that the DA agrees not to vigorously oppose the appeal. All it means is that he doesn't forfeit the right to file the appeal.

That's what Rose secured: the understanding that he hadn't forfeited the right to apply for reinstatement. Nobody agreed that he had any actual right to reinstatement, or any right to serious consideration for reinstatement.
   152. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: November 28, 2011 at 11:19 PM (#4002544)
I haven't seen a response to the claim that Rose did not bet on every game, the implication being that bookies Rose used would take his inactivity for any particular game as a sign that betting against the Reds might be a good idea.

Other than that, bring him back. It's the Christmas season.
   153. Tom was totally clowned by CW Posted: November 29, 2011 at 01:16 AM (#4002582)
To me it is simple, Rose got a life sentence, but he has the right to get reinstated based on his good behavior since then.

Good behavior in this instance being defined as getting clear of gambling, speaking out against gambling, not getting any money from gambling businesses or from discussing gambling strategies.

He has done nothing to put gambling behind him, I fail to see the slightest rationalization for reinstating him short of that.

And any new discussion of his original crime is irrelevant to the discussion of reinstatement. His original crime merited exactly the sentence he received, and he agreed to it. His reinstatement can only be based on his behavior since he admitted to gambling on baseball.
   154. CrosbyBird Posted: November 29, 2011 at 04:02 AM (#4002663)
As someone pointed out you are giving the same punishment for someone who committed murder as someone who committed assault. Where is the encouragement to stop at the assault, you have already passed the point of no return, so why not go all the way?

The problem with this analogy is that (actually) gambling on a game in which your own team baseball is already nearly the most serious crime against the sport. You shouldn't be comparing assault to murder, but comparing one set of serial murders to another set of slightly more serial murders. "This is the penalty for seven murders? Why not commit eight murders? You're already facing more years in prison without the possibility of parole than three human lifetimes' worth."

"Assault" is gambling on baseball when your team isn't one of the participants.

EDIT: Let's remember that this wasn't some sort of isolated incident. Rose didn't gamble a few times for small amounts. He had a very serious problem.
   155. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 29, 2011 at 04:11 AM (#4002667)
I haven't seen a response to the claim that Rose did not bet on every game, the implication being that bookies Rose used would take his inactivity for any particular game as a sign that betting against the Reds might be a good idea.

As I noted in #139 above, Dowd found evidence of only 52 such bets for the entire 1987 season. That doesn't mean that he didn't bet on them in the other 110 games, but the only evidence that we have that this was the case is Rose's own claim.
   156. bobm Posted: November 29, 2011 at 05:17 AM (#4002688)
[139] Rose claimed that he bet on the Reds "every game", but Dowd only found evidence of 52 bets in 1987. Obviously Rose's moral case only holds if what he said was 100% factual, not 30%.

[155] As I noted in #139 above, Dowd found evidence of only 52 such bets for the entire 1987 season. That doesn't mean that he didn't bet on them in the other 110 games, but the only evidence that we have that this was the case is Rose's own claim.

Rose didn't bet on the Reds in 1987 when Soto or Gullickson was pitching. He didn't think they were going to win. Maybe his lineups and/or reliever usage varied according to starter and whether Rose had money on the game. I don't care enough to do the research.

Rose has zero moral claim to being some "fierce competitor who only bet on his own team everyday (and so it's okay)."
   157. Ron J Posted: November 29, 2011 at 10:30 AM (#4002736)
#151 He also signed away any say in the appeal procedure. Not of course that he had any, but it's explicit in the agreement that the commissioner holds the say in the procedures of the appeal.
   158. TomH Posted: November 29, 2011 at 11:16 AM (#4002744)
candidates for worst / 'everything has already been said before' thread ideas:
1. Rose
2. Bonds
3. Jeter
4. a few of our tired social/non-baseball issues
   159. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM (#4002748)
Again, unless we have real concerns about governmental abuse, I don't care one whit for procedural justice.


That's a bit strong, don't you think? Would you have no problem if the owner of a company fired all the "nigras" because they looked shifty and were probably all thieves?
   160. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM (#4002751)
That's a bit strong, don't you think? Would you have no problem if the owner of a company fired all the "nigras" because they looked shifty and were probably all thieves?
That sounds more like a substantive complaint than a procedural one.
   161. ray james Posted: November 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM (#4002754)
I remember after Rose read his statement, agreeing to the commissioners decision but not having to admit he bet on baseball, a sportswriter asked Rose why he would agree to such an arrangement if he was innocent of the charges. Rose just got that "deer caught in headlights" look and was speechless.
   162. LargeBill Posted: November 29, 2011 at 03:16 PM (#4002824)
Let me start with an unequivocal Hell no, and then add a couple points for consideration.

Having the permanent ban remain permanent has far less to do with Rose than current and future players. A deterrent punishment only deters if it is believed to be real. The death penalty stopped being a legitimate deterrent when our court system screwed it up with decades of appeals. A person contemplating committing a crime is no more deterred by the thought of a death penalty 20+ years from now than beginning smokers are deterred by thought of health problems decades from now.

Some appear to minimize the risk involved in gambling. What I think they fail to understand is the reason gambling by participants in sports is feared is because gamblers lose. I'm not saying some gamblers lose. No, pretty much all gamblers lose. Gamblers may talk about their winnings, but they fail to brag about all the losing that happens as well. Consider the lottery. Only the winner gets his picture taken with the big check. However, for that guy to win 100 million more than 200 million was lost by others. Back to sports. Once you lose (and remember they all lose) you become beholden to the bookies. Whether Rose reached the point the bookies were able to tell him to lose or not is irrelevant. The rule is in place as a deterrent against anyone starting on that path not as a deterrent against reaching the finish line of throwing games.

SBB and others can argue bits and pieces of the case or the procedures involved, but none of that changes the basic elements. Rose bet on baseball. By itself that is enough, but further he bet on games in which his own team was participating. There is no need to prove or even speculate whether he bet against his team. Once he started betting he was on that inevitable path to loserhood.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2207 - 1:11pm, Nov 14)
Last: . . . . . .

NewsblogMLB owners expected to unanimously approve extension for Rob Manfred next week, report says
(29 - 1:09pm, Nov 14)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-14-2018
(11 - 1:06pm, Nov 14)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(141 - 1:05pm, Nov 14)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(28 - 1:05pm, Nov 14)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogAtlanta/Southeast BBTF meet up
(61 - 12:53pm, Nov 14)
Last: dlf

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Chicago White Sox
(34 - 12:46pm, Nov 14)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogDodgers pitcher Hyun-jin Ryu is only MLB player to accept $17.9M qualifying offer for 2019
(47 - 12:36pm, Nov 14)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(188 - 12:26pm, Nov 14)
Last: Zonk is Just the Right Amount of Wrought

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1194 - 12:22pm, Nov 14)
Last: PepTech, the Legendary

NewsblogThe greatest under-28 free agents of all time, and where Harper and Machado rank – The Athletic
(19 - 12:12pm, Nov 14)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOTP 2018 Nov 12 - Why Voting Is Like Baseball (Hint: Both Matter)
(500 - 12:07pm, Nov 14)
Last: Fernigal McGunnigle

NewsblogNYPost: Why Mets may be in hurry to reach David Wright settlement
(34 - 11:42am, Nov 14)
Last: billyshears

Newsblog2018 Manager of the Year winners | MLB.com
(11 - 11:26am, Nov 14)
Last: The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s

NewsblogLorena Martin levels accusations of racism against Mariners | The News Tribune
(84 - 11:06am, Nov 14)
Last: Jim Furtado

Page rendered in 0.5584 seconds
46 querie(s) executed