Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

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]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

(oops, got cut off)

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

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

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

[tacprc]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

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.

[tacprc]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

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

[redoctober]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

[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!

[33bird]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

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.

[staindsox]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

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]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

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.

[staindsox]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

Why should he be sorry for anything besides getting caught? He bet his team would win, he never coached his players to throw a game. The Rose-Jackson debate is invalid because Jackson actually may have been involved in the throwing of a game. Giving that the commissioner was a total prick and he was found not-guilty. It may seem wrong in your eyes, but you are looking at the rule aspect of it, not the practicality of the incident. Lane Kiffin boasts about his team with words, Rose boasted about his with money.

First of all, Rose signed an agreement to be banned to stop the investigation. John Dowd, who headed it, believes had he been given more time, he would have proven Rose bet against the Reds. Even if we give Pete the benefit of the doubt here, the true problem is that he was the manager. THE REASON HE BET ON HIS OWN TEAM IS HE COULD PLAY A ROLE IN THE OUTCOME. He would be in a position to misuse how he plays his team to cover bets. That means when he uses his pen, rests his players, uses the bench, etc. For instance, he could overuse his bullpen on Monday by using five pitchers to overprotect a win to be sure he wins his bet. Then the pen is shot for Tuesday and Wednesday. Funny, they lose the two games, but Pete didn't bet on them. Even though he didn't make any money off a bet on those two losses, his gambling hurt the team; they just lost two of three.

Let's not forget spreads too. Not only could he misuse his team to overprotect a win, but he could put crummy players into the lineup late in the game to make sure the Reds didn't score too many runs. He basically point shave (run shave in this case) and since he is the manager, nobody would say anything other than a poor decision to use a certain player in a certain situation. He may have even lost some games doing this by trying to keep the game close.

Point is there are numerous ways to damage your team even though it appears your managing to win. It is bad enough that players have done it, but a manager betting on a game his team is playing is still the most criminal act in the game.

[Bobby Jenks]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

He is also selling t-shirts and hoodies on his site. Good thing he apolgized.

The only thing he is sorry about is that he got caught.

Why should he be sorry for anything besides getting caught? He bet his team would win, he never coached his players to throw a game. The Rose-Jackson debate is invalid because Jackson actually may have been involved in the throwing of a game. Giving that the commissioner was a total prick and he was found not-guilty. It may seem wrong in your eyes, but you are looking at the rule aspect of it, not the practicality of the incident. Lane Kiffin boasts about his team with words, Rose boasted about his with money.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

OK, my turn


Here is what I know about Pete Rose:

He is stubborn as a mule.

He thinks he knows baseball as well if not better than anyone in the game.......an arguable point indeed.

He always gave 110% on the field.

He was one hell of a teammate.

He has a personality like a soapdish.

He was a HIGHLY competitive person.

His competitive nature led him into a spiraling out-of-control gambling habit.

He surrounded himself with trashy friends, which was intended as he needed to do his gambling deeds underground.

He was a ladies man.

He was one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game.

He has more hits than anyone in the history of the game.

He corked his bats towards the end of his career to gain an advantage he thought he was losing with age.......(this is probably more of a psychological advantage than anything else, tests have proven).

He is anything but politically correct.

He doesn't know the meaning of contrition, being humbled, or accepting someone else's opinion on what he did that was wrong.

He doesn't understand that what he did was the ultimate sin in baseball lore......(and this is because he never had any intent of doing any harm to baseball).

He's not smart enough to do any damage to baseball.



He belongs in the Hall Of Fame..........he has paid enough for his wrongdoings and personality flaws.

[redoctober]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

Yeah, I have a problem with Selig making this decision.

He allowed the 1994 World Series to be canceled.

Note: That act may have doomed the Montreal Expos franchise.

He used his position to have the Milwaukee Brewers -- the team that he owns -- moved to the NL Central division.

He allowed baseballs to be juiced.

He allowed steroids to happen.

I cannot agree more in regards to your Bud Selig comments. It continues to be an absolute joke what has happened on his "watch." This is what happens when the owners appoint a fellow owner to be the "commissioner."

An absolute mockery of what a commissioner should be, yet he will not be replaced for years to come.

[cjclong]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

The rule was plain, and Rose knew it, that if you bet on baseball you are banned. It seems to me that some compromise could be worked that he is allowed in the HOF where his numbers show he belongs and is continued to be banned from baseball otherwise. I think that would be a fair compromise. I understand rules would have to changed to allow it. I'm not a Rose fan, but I think that would be fair. If he doesn't like that, who cares. Betting nearly destroyed baseball in the past and it can't be allowed by those in the game. As for the steroid crowd. at least they were trying to win. We'll see how they are viewed later.

[jbsportstuff]

Re: Pete Rose possible reinstatement..

I'm all for Rose being in the HOF. I hate the fact that he bet on baseball...and also that he lied about it.

However, I watched him play and give his all to the game. He played to give his team the advantage....head first slides, hard slides, sacrificing self. Plus..he's the hit king.