Look who got called in from the bullpen

Over at Ethan's sports blog, In The Bullpen, his colleague Dan Punch penned a piece this week on the whether or not Pete Rose's lifetime ban (from the game and more importantly, the Hall of Fame) should be lifted. Take a look at it for yourself. Dan believes that Rose should be in. Naturally, I don't. I posted a comment in to show my disapproval (take a look below for it) and the site's editor posted it as one the entries. Take a look for yourself.

Here’s the problem with Pete Rose. The Dowd Report (which Rose signed off on and verified in his 2004 book) declared that Rose bet on Reds’ games while he was player-manager with the Reds from 1985 to 1987. Jim Dowd later stated he believed that Rose bet against the Reds during this period. As the manager, Rose had direct influence on the results of the game. Everything from starting lineups to pitching changes to pinch hitting to the disabled list were under his control. If you take Dowd at his word, then Rose should be absolutely remain banned for life as there is no difference between what he and what the 1919 White Sox were convicted of: Making money on his own teams’ defeats.

Even if we concede that Rose didn’t bet against the Reds (which I don’t believe for a second), the fact remains that Rose (by his own admission) bet on baseball. And even worse, he bet on his own team. And not every night (which is a fundamental problem.) I understand that there is an argument of “But Rose only bet on his team to win” but there is an inherent problem with this. Going back to my manager point, Rose easily could have fiddled with the pitching rotation, moving his ace starter up a game or two in order to face the opposing team’s #4/5 starter and win a bet on Night A. Rose now knows full well that the next night (Night B) the Reds would be playing the same team (let’s say the LA Dodgers) and their ace. But on Night B the Reds need to start their 4th/5th starter, greatly reducing the odds of victory. And this is only one way he could have played with the outcome of games he bet on with a patent disregard for the games he opted not to (read: Didn’t care if his team lost).

I would have less of a problem (though not much less) if Rose bet on the Reds every night, but the Dowd Report indicated that he was selective as to when he placed his bets. In essence he created situations that would be most profitably to him, Pete Rose the gambler, and to the determent of the Reds.

As to your point of “Is it so hard to imagine Rose is telling the truth?” Yes it is. Rose lied about betting on baseball for 15 years until it suited him to tell “the truth.” When he was first banned by MLB, he denied betting on any type of sports. Later he shifted his stance to betting on horse and dog racing, the NFL, the NBA and NCAA basketball. Then it became baseball but not the Reds. Finally, when needed money he wrote his “tell all” book where he admitted what Jim Dowd had determined and what most baseball people already knew: He had bet on the Reds. There is a constant pattern of lying with Rose. I believe that the next logical step would to be for Rose to pen another book where he admits to lying again and concedes that he bet against the Reds.

Finally, the Charlie Hustle argument is BS because Rose was never accused/admitted to betting on baseball in his prime. He wasn’t betting on himself and his own ability. He was betting as a manager (and washed up player) and his wagers were based on his ability to manipulate the games. At this point of his player career, he was no longer seen as the hardest working player in the game; he was viewed a selfish man who only cared about breaking Ty Cobb’s career hits record, in spite of the fact that he was no where near close to the player that he once was and didn’t belong in an MLB lineup. If anything, I believe that this version of Rose (jaded, selfish, cynical) was quite capable of doing something as petty as throwing a game just to make a buck.

That Pete Rose was a “Crook and Liar” doesn’t bar him from the Hall of Fame. What does is that he gambled on the sport while playing and managing.