Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

[staindsox]

I want to see it in writing where Dowd said that about Rose betting against the Reds. I've read everything about Rose that's available and I've never ever seen that. I'm not saying he didn't say that, but I've never seen or heard it. Please advise.

Just Google it. It's all over the place. Dowd said it in an interview at least five years ago. I believe he later retracted it (to avoid any legal issues). The fact that he even said that on the record in the first place is interesting.

[33bird]

You're mistaken. Just read that dowd said he thought if he could keep investigating he thought he might be able to prove that, and then later he apologized and said he never should have said that. Even Selig said that Dowd did a thorough investigation and nothing was ever found that he bet against his own team. I'm sure if he did bet against his team Dowd would have found it. Rose was not careful while betting and that was one of the main reasons he was caught. Was interesting thought that Dowd said he never bet on Soto or Gullickson when they pitched and bookies caught on to that and would bet the other side. That's why no principal in the game should bet for or against his team.

[redoctober]

[quote=33bird;154584]Just read that dowd said he thought if he could keep investigating he thought he might be able to prove that, and then later he apologized and said he never should have said that. quote]


This is the amazing thing to me about the investigation. It REALLY bothers me that a supposedly "independent" investigator would say that he "suspected" anything!! This comment, even years later, shows a clear bias.

That said, it is clear that Rose was involved in betting on Reds games. However -- the investigator says years later that he believed that he could have proven more??? Come on... an investigator should be completely unbiased and should be professional enough to only comment on documented facts.


Either way, yes, Rose bet on baseball. However, IT IS TIME... let it go already and put him in!

[tacprc]

I have never seen anyone offer any evidence that Rose did anything but try to win each and every Reds game.

[tacprc]

I have never seen anyone offer any clear evidence that Rose corked his bats or, more importantly, used a corked bat in a game.

Granted, this evidence would be hard to find -- short of a Chris Sabo-like bat explosion -- but I doubt that Rose would have done the corking himself so at least one other person must have been involved.

Note: There is nothing wrong with using a corked bat in batting practice - as Sammy Sosa said he did.

I have seen two alleged corked bats in two auctions, but there was no independent confirmation that 1) the bats were corked; 2) the corking dated back to 1985/86; or 3) Rose actually used the bats in a game.

Tommy Gioiosa said that Rose used a corked bat, but I don't believe that he provided any details. Moreover, Gioiosa is a convicted felon and not the most reputable source.

[suicide_squeeze]

I have never seen anyone offer any clear evidence that Rose corked his bats or, more importantly, used a corked bat in a game.

Granted, this evidence would be hard to find -- short of a Chris Sabo-like bat explosion -- but I doubt that Rose would have done the corking himself so at least one other person must have been involved.

Note: There is nothing wrong with using a corked bat in batting practice - as Sammy Sosa said he did.

I have seen two alleged corked bats in two auctions, but there was no independent confirmation that 1) the bats were corked; 2) the corking dated back to 1985/86; or 3) Rose actually used the bats in a game.

Tommy Gioiosa said that Rose used a corked bat, but I don't believe that he provided any details. Moreover, Gioiosa is a convicted felon and not the most reputable source.

Hmmmmmm.......stay tuned, I'm going to post some interesting stuff on this tomorrow.....but

[suicide_squeeze]

(oops, got cut off)

but.......right now, it's night night

[suicide_squeeze]

Good morning forum....

I want to start by saying I am probably one of the very few who has actually taken the time to read the entire Dowd report. The exhibits, the testimony of the subpoenas, etc. It was obvious what Pete Rose was involved in, what he tried to cover up, and why he plea bargained in the end.

That said, I am a believer that Pete Rose is a flawed man, like every single human being walking the face of the earth. Yes, he bet on baseball. Yes, he bet on the Reds. But he did not, ever, bet against them, or try to throw a game for financial profit. I also don't buy the arguments that he may have made decisions to keep a pitcher in too long, risking that players health, or used his whole staff in an attempt to win a game he bet on.....atc., just so he could win a bet.

Remember folks, when you bet on a major league game, you bet on the PITCHER. The line on the game is set by the starting pitchers. By the time the game is in it's late stages, changing pitchers is done out of necessity to keep your lead if you have one. In a lot of these games, the outcome may have already been determined. In a case where it was a close game, Pete's decision(s) on who to put in was of course going to be similar to any other game under the same circumstances. Use logic: As a manager, you are trying to win every single game. What possible reason would you have for making a choice that would be different from any regular untainted un-bet-on game?.....you still want to WIN IT, and as the manager of the team, you still need to make the move that best places your team in a position to do just that. The argument of over-using one particular pitcher just doen't hold water.

So then what was Pete all about?

He was a highly competitive baseball player. Maybe he wasn't the smartest guy in the world, worldly in other areas of life outside of baseball, but a baseball guy he is.

It is my opinion that Pete Rose felt he knew more about the game than anybody. Whether or not that is true, he definately knows a ton, and is one of the greatest players to have ever played. Why do I bring this up? Because it leads to the whole "mental aspect" of intent.

Did Pete Rose "intend" to do damage to baseball?


Not a chance. No way. Absolutely not.....he loves the game.


But as a flawed, highly competitive guy, who thinks he knows more about it than anything else, a guy who played it to the best of his abilities, and in doing so earned his spot on top of the all-time hit platform, he felt he could take some liberties, and use them to his advantage to do the things he was all about: being competitive.....gambling on games. Showing himself and everyone close to him that he knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, as nuch as one knows about the game, there is still a reason they play the games......because the outcome is never set in stone. Gamblers usually go all in the same direction, eventually. Broke. Anyone will common sense and understanding know it's the bookies and houses taking the "action" that make the money.

Again, back to the point. Pete, being the kind of guy he is, displayed his personality in many different ways. He played hard, all of the time. He won World Series on different teams. He climbed to the pinnacle of the all-time hits record of Ty Cobb. and in doing so, he, like other mortals, had their problems at times.

Tommy Gioiosa was living with Pete for a period of time, and running his bets. Tommy was like a surrogate son to Pete. Those of you who don't think Tommy didn't know everything about Pete....well, you are mistaken. Even after Pete and Tommy had a "falling out", Tommy still considered him a friend and protected what he knew for years. But, when he finally heard things Pete was saying in regards to him, and basically making Tommy realise that Pete was all about himself, and discretiting anyone around him for his own benefit, that's finally when Tommy Gioiosa finally started talking.

Everything he said was true. Pete bet on baseball. He bet on the Reds.

And he did cork his bats when he was slumping, and he used them in games.

Why do you think Pete used to sand off the paint on his black Mizuno's? To see the wear on the wood from use? Are you kidding??

He did that to see if he could see the starting signs of separation in the grain, a telling sign the bat may be about ready to explode on the field on the very next hit ball!

He probably experimented on different sized cork insertions, length, you name it. This guy was no dummy in his world. He was in control, and did things for a reason. He felt he was losing his "pop" pff the bat as he was getting older, and eventually approaching Ty Cobb's record. So he had played with a couple of guys who claimed that corking a bat would lighten it up, give him that bat speed back, and the ball would jump off the bat better. Pete, somewhere along the line bought it, and the rest is history.

to be cont.

[suicide_squeeze]

(cont.)....


So some of you don't believe he corked his bats?

Consider this scenario.

Along comes a Lelands auction in 2005. Within a year of the time frame Pete had released his Book "My Prison Without Bars" where he admitted, finally and officially, that he did in fact bet on baseball. In this auction, there is a bat that claimed to be corked.....a Black, 1985 beautiful gamer with perfect game use aspects of Pete's. He also has signed and inscribed it, apparently hitting his second to last career home run (#159) with it. The bat was expected to go for around $4,000-$6,000.

It sold for over $103,000.

Why?

How could that be?

I was one of the bidders.....I wanted that bat badly. I spulled out of the bidding when it hit $20,000 as I just couldn't see paying that kind of money for it above that. As it climbed throught the night, eventually reaching $50,000, I was left breathless and scratching my head.

Before going to sleep at around midnight, the bat was at $86,000. It was the craziest auction item I has ever seen in all my days of being in the hobby.

The next morning, I called Lelands to ask who won it. Of course, they have privacy laws that dictate they can't divulge that info. I eventually learned, by a press release the very next day, that an off-shore Casino won the bat. They publicly announced that they were going to hold a charity event, and cut the bat in two pieces to show everyone, live, if it truely was corked.

But a funny thing happened on the way to this revelation. The "event" never happened. There were rumors that this offshore company had "gone out of business". They have not, they are still in business. I have tried on several occasions to contact the Casino in an attempt to ask what happened to this bat, and what their intentions were in regards to it. No luck.....until one day, I did actually get a guy on the phone explaining to me I would have to email management to get a response. I did, three separate times....no response.

Have any of you wondered why a bat like this would go for over $100,000? Babe Ruth bats can be obtained for less.....true gamers from the GOD of baseball himself......and a supposed corked Rose gamer goes for over $100,000???

Well, I have a theory. Do you guys raise an eyebrow over the fact that an offshore Casino won this bat? Do you think that there may be a possibility that Pete Rose, himself, was the winner of this bat to get it off the market, in his plight to possibly one day get himself into the Hall of Fame? Remember, Bud "The Geek" Selig had just completed meetings with Pete, and the topic was possible reinstatement if he would just come clean. Pete did so, but by way of a book, and that once again set him back in Selig's eyes (because the timing was also horrendous....coming on the day before Eckersley and Molitor were announced to be the new Hall members).

I believe Pete Rose, who still gambles to this day (which is his legal right, I might add), was using this off-shore Casino to do his betting through, and when word came of the pending auction of this bat found out to be corked, Pete asked the Casino to bid on the bat to win it, and Pete would pay for it, thus getting it out of the public's hands. Unfortunately for Pete, some high spender really wanted this bat, so Pete, through the off-shore cloak bidder in his place, had to pay through the NOSE to get the bat back. How else do you explain an off-shore Casino even bothering to bid on it, let alone win it? How else do you explain that the bat has disappeared from the face of the earth?

Unfortunately for Pete, his personality has gotten in his own way again, and he is still stumbling through his plight to be reinstated. Add to that that Lelands sold off yet ANOTHER Black Mizuno, a cracked gamer with a piece missing, that was claimed to have a "cork-like substance" inside of it which was exposed at the end of the barrel. That one went for just over $5,000. Maybe it wasn't a real gamer, just game issued, but got into the hands of another fradulent opportunistic criminal who wanted to cash in on Pete's troubles (knowing the other bat went for over $100,000) so he drilled it our and stuffed it with......something?

In any case I just want you all to know, I believe Pete has suffered enough. He is human, and maybe has done some things that he would like to take back, including corking a few bats, but I don't believe he needs to be punished any longer for what he has done. He never intended to profit from the game by thowing games, or manipulating the games he bet on in any other way than to just outright win them. And in regards to the corking of his bats, studies have been done, and outside of a miniscule benefit of having the bat be a bit lighter (which may help your timing if you are in a slump.....allowing you a split fraction of a second longer to focus on hitting the ball), there are no real benefits hitting a ball further, or better by using a corked bat. What you gain in bat speed or timing, you lose in impact on the ball which won't travel as far due to lost velocity from the lighter weight of the bat.

So put Pete in the Hall of Fame. He belongs there. He was one of the greatest players to ever play the game. He has paid his dues, suffered through the humility of being bannished for life. What purpose does it serve to not give him his porper spot in Copperstown? He didn't take steroids to improve his performance.....his corked bats may have given him what?.....20 extra hits he may not have had without them? WHo really cares.....spitballers probably have 20 extra wins in their careers because of these types of incidental "cheatings" in baseball. They are instilled in the fabric of the game, they are incidentals.....not something to judge a whole career by.

Bud......you've been a freaking disgrace to the game for so long. Do something right for a change and, although making it clear Pete shouldn't be involved in baseball anymore (because his past transgressions were a direct reflection of his character flaws.....the same ones that should keep an alcoholic out of a bar), he does belong in the Hall for what he accomplished on the field.

Put him in, let him be, and let's close this chapter of baseball. The next chapter, the steroid one, will be consuming enough of baseball's energy for the forseeable future.

[tacprc]

I believe that Pete sanded his black Mizuno bats because the varnish chipped and/or he wanted to be able to see the ball marks.

Pete sanded all of his black Mizuno bats -- several dozen in both 1985 and 1986. Very few, if any, have cork inserts.