June 22, 2015

And like that, Rob Manfred takes the application for reinstatement from Pete Rose's lawyer and tosses it into the garbage.

Let's go through the list one more time:

"I never bet on sports."
"I never bet on baseball."
"I never bet on Reds games."
"I never bet on Reds games as a player."
"I never bet against the Reds as a player."

That last statement by Rose is the only one he hasn't been caught lying about...yet.

posted by grum@work at 02:45 PM on June 22, 2015

I need to read through that story a few more times to make sure I get what's going on.

I didn't realize that US Postal Inspectors had such dynamic crime fighting capability and initiative.

I didn't realize that evidence so critical could be kept off limits, unacknowledged, hidden from public view, and shuttled around between government bureaus like that. Even though the people keeping the documents hidden knew full well how useful they would be to an ongoing investigation. They could have redacted the documents to protect the third parties that they claim to be so concerned about.

The reasoning of the US Attorney's office for denying access to the material sounds and feels like discretionary nonsense. They were content to let the saga play out as it did without that evidence. So much time, effort, and bullshit wrangling could have been avoided.

How did OTL and Dowd finally get access to the docs since the FOI request was previously denied?

posted by beaverboard at 03:25 PM on June 22, 2015

I never saw Rose's potential reinstatement hinging on him being someone who was wrongly punished.

It is about deciding that a quarter-century ban is sufficient punishment and a 74-year-old man should be able to return to the game before he's dead.

posted by rcade at 04:39 PM on June 22, 2015

Like dfleming says, the cover-up is often worse than the crime. At the very least, it exacerbates it, and makes one's ability to forgive exceedingly difficult. (Compare Andy Pettitte to Roger Clemens--they probably both used PEDs together, but Pettitte was slowly, then warmly welcomed back to the Yankees, while Clemens still walks around defending himself to skeptics.)

Also, Rose's punishment--which he personally accepted at the time--was a lifetime ban from participation in anything related to Major League Baseball. He's been petitioning in public to change the terms of his deal. Sounds like whoever leaked this notebook to ESPN disagrees.

posted by werty at 05:17 PM on June 22, 2015

Let the old fart be a part of the game, and if there are concerns some team might put him in a prominent position, limit what he's allowed to do.

Why let him be part of the game at all?

He had a chance in 2004 to set the record straight. He chose to lie to the fans and to folks in the game - yet again.

He's still the hits leader. He works for FOX in baseball. What more does Pete Rose deserve considering he's still lying about what he did?

posted by dfleming at 08:36 PM on June 22, 2015

Why let him be part of the game at all?

Because 26 years is long enough for his punishment. I think it's way past long enough and deeply into ridiculous territory. Baseball is hardly so pristine that his jersey should be a hair shirt for a quarter century and counting.

Alex Rodriguez was suspended for a season for being a huge PED cheat. Is what Rose did 26 times as bad?

Marge Schott was banned in 1996 for racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler statements and reinstated two years later. Is what Rose did 13 times as bad?

Has the definition of "permanent" changed?

Can you honestly tell me that when Pete Rose received a "lifetime" ban, you thought it would be for his entire life? If yes, then you can play the "permanent" card. If not, then like me you always knew permanent actually meant "a long-ass time but quite possibly not forever," so here we are.

Do you decide 20 years after he was fired to ignore the embezzlement and give him a gold watch for his retirement?

This punishment isn't one company, though. It covers a giant range of companies and activities that includes all teams in the majors, all affiliated teams in the minors and related activities such as being a sports agent.

Most embezzlers would have been convicted and released long before 26 years had passed and could be hired by any entity that wanted to hire him.

posted by rcade at 10:52 PM on June 22, 2015

^^ this.

posted by werty at 11:25 PM on June 22, 2015

It's fairly hypocritical of baseball, a sport that has seen it's share of cheating scandals and overall bad behaviour, to decide that there is one single kind of misbehaviour that will get you a life sentence. I mean, wasn't it like way back last week that the Cardinals were found to have hacked another team's intellectual/commercial property? Baseball has this holier than thou thing going on which is frankly ludicrous and a figleaf on what is a cut-throat business.

It's like the NCAA, full of some terrible shenanigans, but OMG if an athlete gets a free pen then pin his ass to the wall. Obviously what Rose did was not right, and obviously he's kind of a jackass which doesn't help his case, but enough is enough.

posted by rumple at 01:46 AM on June 23, 2015

Because 26 years is long enough for his punishment. I think it's way past long enough and deeply into ridiculous territory. Baseball is hardly so pristine that his jersey should be a hair shirt for a quarter century and counting.

Alex Rodriguez was suspended for a season for being a huge PED cheat. Is what Rose did 26 times as bad?

Marge Schott was banned in 1996 for racist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler statements and reinstated two years later. Is what Rose did 13 times as bad?

Baseball didn't want A-Rod back (nor did the Yankees), but unfortunately they don't get to unilaterally ban guys from the game for PEDs. The union has a say, particularly when contracts are being negotiated.

Do I think A-Rod belongs in the game at all? No, I don't. Do you?

Marge Schott to me is entirely irrelevant, because PEDs and betting on baseball are about the integrity of the game, not about whether a person is a horrible human being or not.

You're conflating this with crimes like embezzlement which is again irrelevant. People banned from their profession are done so for life routinely because they've undermined the integrity of everyone else doing it. There's no fundamental right to be associated with the profession of your choice as there is a fundamental right to freedom after a jail sentence.

Pete Rose is still doing damage to baseball - this would not be a story if in 2004 he had've said "yes, I bet on games I was in when I was a player." He didn't, and now baseball gets to deal with entire news cycles on this stuff yet again.

Pete Rose has also been making something like a million dollars a year in speaking fees as a former player. He has a job in baseball. He's benefitted from his legacy as the hits leader, but the game won't benefit at all from letting him back in, in part because he continues to plague them with his the fact even his mea culpas (which netted him money too) were full of lies.

posted by dfleming at 07:50 AM on June 23, 2015

It would be like petitioning the government to rehire someone who had been convicted of treason/spying. "Oh, it was 26 years ago, and he's sorry he did it. He deserves another chance!"

That, and he's not even sorry he did it.

posted by bender at 09:08 AM on June 23, 2015

Well, it does have the word "lifetime" in it.

So do life prison sentences. Yet ...

Life in prison without parole exists, doesn't it?
And even if you have a life prison sentence with the possibility of parole, it doesn't mean they have to give you parole just because you've been in there for a long period of time.

You're conflating this with crimes like embezzlement ...

Grum brought that comparison up, not me.

Actually, you made a slight side step with the analogy.

I said that the embezzler wouldn't be welcomed back to the company from which he embezzled.

My original comment:
It's like an employee of the company that was a model citizen for the first 30 years, but then during the last 10 years he embezzled millions of dollars and was finally caught. Do you decide 20 years after he was fired to ignore the embezzlement and give him a gold watch for his retirement?

Gold watches are given by companies to former employees, not by industries as a whole.

You then took it as an embezzler being released from prison not getting any job. My analogy was with the original company (MLB), which includes all the teams in MLB, all the minor-league teams owned by the MLB teams (affiliated), and working with MLB (agents). As I pointed out, he's gotten jobs around MLB (autographs, independent leagues, broadcasting), but not with MLB.

posted by grum@work at 10:42 AM on June 23, 2015

I didn't realize that evidence so critical could be kept off limits, unacknowledged, hidden from public view, and shuttled around between government bureaus like that. Even though the people keeping the documents hidden knew full well how useful they would be to an ongoing investigation. They could have redacted the documents to protect the third parties that they claim to be so concerned about.

The reasoning of the US Attorney's office for denying access to the material sounds and feels like discretionary nonsense. They were content to let the saga play out as it did without that evidence. So much time, effort, and bullshit wrangling could have been avoided.

I actually find it kind of refreshing that the government kept this under wraps as long as it did. If this investigation had happened today, it seems almost a certainty that there would have been a leak, as there was with the PED list that (to date) has provided the only evidence that David Ortiz, among others, was a PED user, and the leak of Barry Bonds' grand jury testimony (although the latter was leaked by a non-government attorney, who was duly punished).

Why should the government be compelled to assist a private (MLB) investigation? I get that it is a matter of public interest, but the fact that the government did not use its police powers to smear/impugn someone who was not a target of the investigation that secured the evidence at hand is surprising and welcome from my perspective.

posted by holden at 11:15 AM on June 23, 2015

The only price he's paying currently is the people to whom he lied and cheated refuse to associate with him professionally ...

You make it sound as if everyone affiliated with MLB wouldn't associate with Rose. They don't have the choice, so we don't know what some organization in baseball would do if the commissioner allowed it. The sport is big. Mark McGwire got coaching gigs eight years after the PED scandal sent him into hiding.

posted by rcade at 11:43 AM on June 23, 2015

I haven't been, but I suspect there are exhibits there with some of his memorabilia

From what I understand, there are about 15-20 pieces of Rose memorabilia in the HOF (tied to the Big Red Machine, the hit record, games played record, etc.)

posted by grum@work at 12:57 PM on June 23, 2015

Mark McGwire did not receive a lifetime ban from baseball.

I didn't say he did. I cited him as an example of someone who got hired despite a large portion of baseball considering him an ignominious figure.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that the Reds would welcome him home with open arms if MLB would allow them.

I agree. The Reds should be allowed to do that. It also would be smart for Manfred to reinstate him so that the Rose scandal can fade into history.

posted by rcade at 01:37 PM on June 23, 2015

I think baseball players and other personnel can manage to understand the seriousness of a rule without punishing Rose for another quarter century or two -- maybe he'll live past 100 and we'll have this debate again in 2040 when another document drops.

Since you think the idea of Rose's family seeking reinstatement after his death is something to snicker about, the chance we'll see eye to eye on this is close to zero.

posted by rcade at 01:47 PM on June 23, 2015

As a general rule I think it's important that punishment be proportionate to the crime, proportionate to other punishments and tempered with mercy.

Why do you feel it is important that he be banned for 27 years instead of 26? 36 instead of 26? His entire lifespan plus one day? What interest hasn't already been served that will be served with more time?

posted by rcade at 03:34 PM on June 23, 2015

Since you think the idea of Rose's family seeking reinstatement after his death is something to snicker about, the chance we'll see eye to eye on this is close to zero.

My snicker was about the idea that the Veteran's Committee would even THINK about voting him into the HOF, regardless of his status on this mortal coil. Other than a couple of hold outs (like Mike Schmidt, former teammates), his contemporaries have made it clear that he wouldn't get voted in if the time ever came.

can manage to understand the seriousness of a rule without punishing Rose for another quarter century or two

Then why is it a lifetime ban? It was known to players before Rose went and broke the rules. The impetus should be on those to explain why a previously established rule should be changed, not why an existing rule should be enforced.

What interest hasn't already been served that will be served with more time?

"Lifetime ban" doesn't really mean much if you don't actually enforce it for a lifetime.

Pete Rose is the shining example of how serious that rule really is to MLB. One of the stars of the game is ostracized because he broke that rule. Everyone sees that the MLB means business about players betting on baseball. The moment they cut that sentence, it sends the message to everyone "Okay, we don't think it's REALLY important any more."

posted by grum@work at 04:37 PM on June 23, 2015

Then why is it a lifetime ban?

It isn't. If you don't believe me, ask Rob Manfred, who said in May he'd consider reinstatement.

Everybody knew from day one the lifetime ban would be open to reconsideration later, so to harp on the word "lifetime" the way you're doing is to cling to a fiction.

Manfred didn't pretend that "lifetime" has to mean "lifetime." Maybe you shouldn't either.

The moment they cut that sentence, it sends the message to everyone "Okay, we don't think it's REALLY important any more."

You're like the tough-on-crime Republican on a parole board who declares that if anyone is ever paroled, it means the crime they committed is now OK. No, that's not the message it sends to show mercy. The message is that sometimes enough is enough.

If Rose was reinstated today, any player considering betting on games would know that he could get a 26-year ban. That's hardly sending the message it is OK to bet on the game.

He is still trying to cover up the extent of his previous problems. He is still not truthful. His remorse has entirely been related to how much he gets caught.

I knew we'd eventually get around to this -- if Rose would just admit everything, we'd consider lifting the ban!

That's a Charlie Brown and the football scenario, and danging it out there when you're so adamant about continuing the ban is not serious. Be honest, Lucy. Any admission Rose made would be thrown into the pile of reasons to justify dragging this all the way to his grave.

... your example of Mark McGwire is again irrelevant because can't take PEDs and play anymore ...

No, he can't, but he has a lot of how-to advice he could offer on PED use to young players if he were, say, a coach. Ban him for life! Show no mercy! The sacred honor of baseball demands it!

posted by rcade at 05:57 PM on June 23, 2015

I don't need more indication. Twenty six years have passed. If Rose goes before Manfred and the commissioner is satisfied with how he talks about himself and his future plans, that's enough for me.

I find it hard to believe that anything Rose could say today would be accepted by Rose critics as a reason to trust him in the future.

In 2010, Rose was at a roast held in his honor attended by many of his Reds teammates that coincided with the 25th anniversary of his 4,192nd hit. Press accounts indicate that he took the stage, openly wept and acknowledged that he "disrespected baseball." He apologized to Tony Perez and other Reds and said, "I guarantee everyone in this room I will never disrespect you again. I love the fans, I love the game of baseball, and I love Cincinnati baseball."

So there's your public act of contrition and a heartfelt pledge for future sterling conduct. That was enough to convince you, right?

posted by rcade at 07:54 PM on June 23, 2015

For the record, I was in the camp of letting him back into baseball until we found out in this latest report that he's lying about betting on games as a player.

The investigator for baseball in 1989, John Dowd, heard testimony from a bookie who said Rose bet on baseball when he played. Dowd's report concluded that Rose, as a player-manager and as a manager, bet on baseball from 1985 to 1987, including 52 times on the Reds to win. In his 2004 autobiography, My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted betting on baseball when he was a player-manager.

All we have that's new here is corroborating documentation for something that was already known and factored into Rose's punishment.

Yours seems to be unfazed by anything except how long his lifetime ban has been.

Bingo. But I'm not claiming to be the voice of reason. I don't think banning him forever is unreasonable. I just think it's wrong.

Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and two other players participated in fixing a Tigers-Indians game at the end of the 1919 season and Cobb arranged to bet $2,000 on it ($27,000 in today's money), according to columnist Jerome Holtzman in 1989. Evidence was presented to Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis eight years later, but he let the inquiry drop.

Fixing a game is worse than betting on your own team to win, I'd suggest.

Yet Cobb and Speaker are both in the Hall.

posted by rcade at 10:15 PM on June 23, 2015

In his 2004 autobiography, My Prison Without Bars, Rose admitted betting on baseball when he was a player-manager.

Are you sure about this?

Then please explain this for me:

In an interview Thursday [April 23, 2015] with Michael Kay on ESPN NY 98.7 FM, Rose reiterated that he did not bet on baseball when he was a player.

John Dowd, who led the original investigation, responded to Rose's Thursday claims by saying Rose is lying.

"He bet when he was a player-manager in '85-'86 and the proof is from Ron Peters in the report," Dowd told Outside the Lines' William Weinbaum, "and there is more evidence from others and from gambling records. It's all right there that he bet as a player-manager."

"That's the way Pete is. He knows the truth and he lied about it in his book," Dowd added.

He was lying right up until 2 months before he got caught in his lies.

Again.

posted by grum@work at 10:36 PM on June 23, 2015

However, if he admitted at the beginning to everything he conceded to at this point, then maybe he'd have a much better case to plead to the commissioner.

Of course. But I tire of suggestions on how Rose could solve his present circumstance through time travel and/or being less of an asshole. What's the point? I've never said Rose did nothing to contribute to the length of his "lifetime" ban.

Are you sure about this?

Rose was a player-manager from 1984 to 1986 and manager from 1987 to 1989. In his book he admitted to betting on the Reds to win frequently while he was manager in 1987, but he also admits that it began earlier than that:

I can't honestly remember the first time I bet on baseball. But I can remember the first time I spoke openly about it. I was sitting in my living room, watching the 1986 playoffs between the Mets and the Astros. I had a group of friends over for the game -- just like I'd done my whole life. Paul Janszen, a friend of Gio's from the gym, heard me talking about the score and asked me a question about gambling on baseball. Without even thinking about the consequences, I said, "Betting on the playoffs makes the games more exciting to watch!"

Dowd is expecting lawyerly precision from Rose when he interprets Rose's "I did not bet on baseball as a player" to mean "as a player or player-manager," and this furthers Dowd's attempt to portray Rose as an unrepentant liar. (You're doing the same here in how you interpret his 2015 comment.) But Rose says in his book that bets were made earlier than the 1986 postseason, so he's making an implicit admission there to betting in 1986, at least.

Rose also says in the book he came clean to Commissioner Bud Selig in 2002, recounting the exchange with these quotes:

Rose: Sir, my daddy taught me two things in life -- how to play baseball and how to take responsibility for my actions. I learned the first one pretty well. The other, I've had some trouble with. Yes, sir, I did bet on baseball.

Selig: How often?

Rose: Four or five times a week. But I never bet against my own team and I never made bets from the clubhouse.

Selig: Why?

Rose: I didn't think I'd get caught. I just thought that I would win every game I managed. I was looking for some extra excitement.

posted by rcade at 11:30 PM on June 23, 2015

Oh, I see you've fallen victim to Manfred's tactic of not taking a stance on anything that is ever put in front of him, regardless of of how silly it might sound.

Manfred didn't just pay lip service to the idea of reinstating Rose. He reviewed documents related to the ban, arranged to meet Rose sometime in July after the All-Star Game in Cincinnati, allowed Rose to participate in All-Star Game festivities and "didn't nix Rose's new analyst job with Fox Sports," per Jon Heyman of CBS Sports.

It doesn't sound like Manfred was being glib when he opened the door to Rose's reinstatement. The new commish was seriously entertaining the idea, which is no doubt why somebody broke the law and leaked documents under court-ordered seal to throw a wrench into it.

posted by rcade at 11:44 PM on June 23, 2015

I think it would be for the best if he is promised reinstatement the day after he dies. Then he can be inducted posthumously to the Hall. No reward in this life for cheating, but his legacy is eventually honored. Problem solved.

That way if he really wants to be reinstated sooner rather than later, he has options.

posted by Hugh Janus at 08:58 AM on June 24, 2015

When Rose says he started gambling "when I became a manager," do you think he meant "when I became a manager exclusively and was no longer a player-manager"? That seems like a strained interpretation to me -- but it's the one all over the media today. If anyone finds a contemporary media account that acknowledges Rose has said in the past he gambled as a player-manager, I'd love to see the link.

The problem is that Rose has a history of changing his story to fit the information that has come out. Maybe he did mean "player-manager" and shortened it to "manager", but given his extensive history of lying, I definitely won't be giving him the benefit of the doubt.

chasing the all-time hit record until getting 4,192 on Sept. 11, 1985. I imagine that pursuit was his major preoccupation -- it certainly was mine during the season.

Ah. This would help explain your point of view.

I was only 14 at the time, and more interested in the Blue Jays pursuit of their first playoff appearance. I was barely paying attention to the NL at the time, and Rose's run would have been a secondary/tertiary thing in my mind.

To me, Rose is an overrated historical figure for his records, and a creep because of his self-promotion (playing himself in pursuit of the records) and breaking "the cardinal rule". In fact, his appearances at WWE events and being an Arrested Development visual gag have a stronger positive resonance with me now.

posted by grum@work at 03:59 PM on June 24, 2015