Pete Rose Interview on ABC's PRIMETIME

[Wolf Hopper]

Please use this thread to discuss the interview. Thanks.

[Elmo]

I thought the lighting was quite good - both subjects didn't try to dress themselves up in terms of make up and that led to a sense of frankness that was obligatory....they both look human and aging.

Pete probably should've made some dress statement or set decision that was either assertive or comfortable as opposed to the in between approach.

It's all theatre anyway -nothing really was said that anyone should be surprised at. why not make it better theatre?

[Elmo]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/tom_verducci/01/08/rose.transcript/index.html

Verducci's post interview release of his Thursday Afternoon conversation.

I can't imagine much that could be more damning.

[Wolf Hopper]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/tom_verducci/01/08/rose.transcript/index.html

Verducci's post interview release of his Thursday Afternoon conversation.

I can't imagine much that could be more damning.

What does this have to do with the "Pete Rose Interview on ABC's PRIMETIME"?

[Wolf Hopper]

On the interview -
Rose said that he was sorry, that he now owes baseball, and that the only way to "make peace" with that is to try and "turn this negative into a positive."

Sounds like the right thing to me.

[KCBOOMER]

I am almost speechless after reading this thread. Fourteen years of lies and people still believe this anything this guy says.

The interview itself was mutually self-serving tripe.

[Wolf Hopper]

Sometimes people change Boomer.

Personally, I'm a lot smarter and mature now, age age 41, than I was when I was 21 years old. It's always been that way - the older I get, the wiser I become (as a result of experiences, etc.) and I become, what I like to believe is, a better person as I become older.

There's stuff that I did at 21 that I would never even consider doing now at age 41 - because of my maturity.

I like to think that this process, because it's never stopped to date, will continue as I get older. I truly expect, that when I'm 62, and have another 21 years of experience/life that I will be much wiser and mature (and handle things well) at 62 than I do now at 41 - or did when I was 21.

Rose is now 62. Perhaps he too is learning and getting better as he gets older?

I cannot say for sure this is the case - but, I have to allow for the possibility.

[Firpo Marberry]

Sometimes people change Boomer.

Personally, I'm a lot smarter and mature now, age age 41, than I was when I was 21 years old. It's always been that way - the older I get, the wiser I become (as a result of experiences, etc.) and I become, what I like to believe is, a better person as I become older.

There's stuff that I did at 21 that I would never even consider doing now at age 41 - because of my maturity.

I like to think that this process, because it's never stopped to date, will continue as I get older. I truly expect, that when I'm 62, and have another 21 years of experience/life that I will be much wiser and mature (and handle things well) at 62 than I do now at 41 - or did when I was 21.

Rose is now 62. Perhaps he too is learning and getting better as he gets older?

I cannot say for sure this is the case - but, I have to allow for the possibility.

Pete hasn't changed. It's pretty obvious from the get-go in that interview. The posting of the rule in each clubhouse is mentioned, and Pete's first response is that most players don't read the fine print. Gibson points out this is on the wall in each clubhouse, not just in a document. Rose responds that the sign isn't that big. Now, I think we know when it came to IQ Pete was as far back in the line as he was when it came to natural talent. He's obviously a fairly dim-witted man. To make an attempt to mitigate this by indicating it's a small sign is not the way to handle this. It's the only baseball rule posted, and being that doesn't seem to mean anything to Pete tells us volumes.

What amazes me the most about Rose's fans is they still stick up for him and make excuses for him. All but a handful of people should have given up on him long ago. It's interesting, he's a convicted felon, and always had an arrogance about him. Kirby Puckett goes to trial on an alleged sexual assault, gets acquitted, and fans turn away in droves. Puckett was always more congenial than Rose, and certainly as beloved in Minnesota as Rose was in Cincinnati.

Now, if Rose were black, the typical baseball fan -- white male bar patron -- would have left him swing long ago.

[OaktownTribeFan]

It was pretty obvious how the interview was going to go from the moment he was asked about Rule 21.D. His response:

A lot of players don't pay attention to the fine print.

The rule about gambling was and is just a detail to him. I'd like to know what else was just a detail--how about gambling during his playing days? Gambling on the Series? I don't see how he has reformed himself enough to get into the Hall.

Rose hasn't really changed. As the interview last night showed, he owns a horse, and was seen betting at the racetrack as recently as December 26th. He's still in the gambling milieu. If he had actually recovered from gambling, he wouldn't be doing those things. And he still denies he had an addiction. That's what I took away from the interview--he's still in denial.

[Elmo]

And he still denies he had an addiction. That's what I took away from the interview--he's still in denial.

No Question. In the book he admits going to the track occasionally, but in the interview he says that betting is 'farthest thing from his mind...." So he's got the typical addicts style of evasion. Well, it's horses and not baseball...so it's OK. Or, it's legal betting and not illegal, so it's OK. Well it's small print...so it's OK. Well, the punishment doesn't fit the crime...so it's OK. and on and on.

[Wolf Hopper]

Pete hasn't changed. It's pretty obvious from the get-go in that interview.

I would disagree. Pete Rose the player, the record breaker, and the manager was a very cocky, overly self confident, brash, chest puffed out kind of person. The Pete Rose that I saw last night in the interview looked like a sad, somewhat feeble, older person, desperate and willing to do anything, and agree to anything, for a 2nd and last chance. That's a change, to me.

[Elmo]

On the interview -
Rose said that he was sorry, that he now owes baseball, and that the only way to "make peace" with that is to try and "turn this negative into a positive."

Sounds like the right thing to me.


A little bit more of that would have gone along way with many people. Particularly if he had said those things in a 'stand alone' way. He didn't, he said he owes baseball and baseball doesn't owe him nothin.' It's just screaming out martyr syndrome and self. Like wise the negative into a positive comment was unaccompanied by anything other than the assumption that the 'positive' would be to allow Pete into the Hall, back into baseball, etc. which would naturally be a positive......and the negative was not the hurt that he did baseball, instead that it was that he lied and was out of baseball.

Both of these formulations lack any sign that he comprehends the core issue. He severely damaged baseball through the willful and conscious breaking of a well known rule. Baseball ought to weigh that and investigate whether he can be trusted not to hurt baseball again. 14 years of lies and a dubious, at best, Mea Culpa wouldn't be very good evidence to me, but I am not Bud.

People do change, it is true. But people who broke rules, broke trust, etc. almost always have to prove they deserve a second chance. This interview might open the curtains on the window to see if he can start to reform himself - but he's a long way from proving that we ought to be opening the door...IMO

[Craig S.]

The interview was self-serving, and I'm not convinced that Pete has changed one bit. Again, he admits that he made mistakes, yet he doesn't step up to take the blame.

This whole scenario was planned out to serve Pete. Fourteen years of silence, then a run of publicity and appearances when his book comes out. As a player, he was arrogant and cocky - I don't see any change.

[Wolf Hopper]

Elmo - what would satisfy in terms of proof?

[Elmo]

Elmo - what would satisfy in terms of proof?


For me? Or for a reasonable person ;)

A) a recognition that he broke a rule and was given the prescribed punishment.

b) that his personal tragedy is of his own making

c) that the hurt to baseball was of his making

d) the fact that other people have made poor personal decisions does not mitigate his own poor personal decisions.

That would be a start.

Then if he could go a few years without gambling, evading taxes, and publishing books with demonstrable lies and equivocations. Then we could revisit this......

[Wolf Hopper]

For me? Or for a reasonable person ;)

A) a recognition that he broke a rule and was given the prescribed punishment.

b) that his personal tragedy is of his own making

c) that the hurt to baseball was of his making

d) the fact that other people have made poor personal decisions does not mitigate his own poor personal decisions.

That would be a start.

Then if he could go a few years without gambling, evading taxes, and publishing books with demonstrable lies and equivocations. Then we could revisit this......

Has he not done A, B, C & D now - - - and would not the last 14 years be "a few years without gambling, evading taxes, and publishing books"?

[Elmo]

Has he not done A, B, C & D now - - - and would not the last 14 years be "a few years without gambling, evading taxes, and publishing books"?


I don't think he has done any of A (the punishment didn't fit the crime, I was not corrupt, etc), B (Baseball didn't reach out to me....), C (I didn't hear any contrition as to the damage to baseball....just a passing comment about being sorry for the fans if his lies hurt them) or D (mentions of Howe, etc). He's still gambling, it's been a couple of years since his most recent IRS settlement I guess. And the book with the lies and equivocations has been out for about 48 hours.....

[Wolf Hopper]

We'll have to agree to disagree - - in hearing Rose now, I hear A,B, C & D..........perhaps we're both just hearing the parts we want to hear or recognize?

[Elmo]

We'll have to agree to disagree - - in hearing Rose now, I hear A,B, C & D..........perhaps we're both just hearing the parts we want to hear or recognize?

Yeah probably on both counts. I just think that you really do water down things when you equivocate on each point as he did, you lose a lot of people - and not just people like me who have made up their minds.

What's expected is remorse (even if it is canned and equally insincere) rather than something that says yeah I'm sorry...but.....

[huskerdru]

Well, I truly may be hearing selectively as well, Steve, but what I heard was not an apology for what he did, but, rather a base attempt to acknowledge the minimum necessary to get back in baseball and profit from it. I didn't see any real acknowledgement of the gravity of his offense. Rather than focusing on repairing the damage he has done (say by establishing a foundation for gambling addiction, or doing public speaking on the dangers and pitfalls of gambling), he focused on how it's all affected HIM. I never heard him say (and I may well have missed it) that was ashamed. He apologized if he "embarassed" us, and acknowledged that he is embarassed...which is telling. Shame arises from knowing you did something wrong. Embarassment arises from getting caught, not feeling truly sorry about what he did...the fact that he consistently downplays or qualifies the gravity of his offense corroborates that.

I think he has not admitted anywhere near the full extent of what he did (I mean, c'mon Pete...you never bet from the clubhouse? Despite the fact that we have multiple eyewitnesses who say that you did...all the time??). No, I don't know that he bet as a player, but I'd consider it a good wager (sorry) that he did. He has admitted some responsibility...but still did plenty last night (and this morning on the Early Show) to try to spread some of the blame around. And he very clearly does not understand the difference, in baseball's eyes, between gambling on a game and snorting lines before a game. He was still hawking the old "other folks did stuff just as bad or worse" story. The main thing is, as far as Pete's concerned, this is all about Pete...except it's not! It's about the Game, and Pete doesn't seem to get it.

I personally predict we'll see, over the next 6-12 months, an increasingly revealing Pete Rose, as he realizes incrementally that his current story isn't cutting it. He'll let a little more out, and see how people react...then a little more, and so on. He tried originally to get back in baseball without admitting any of his offenses. Now he's trying to do so by admitting some of them. When he sees that that's not cutting it, he'll give us some more. It's a classic pattern of attempting to avoid as much accaountability as possible while still getting what he wants. Pete may have changed over the last 15 years, but not as regards his attitude toward what he did.

[KCBOOMER]

"I will be told that I am an idealist. I hope so. I will continue to locate ideals I hold for myself and for my country in the national game as well as in other of our national institutions. And while there will be debate and dissent about this or that or another occurrence on or off the field, and while the game's nobler parts will always be enmeshed in the human frailties of those who, whatever their role, have stewardship of the game, let there be no doubt or dissent about our goals for baseball or our dedication to it. Nor about our vigilance and vigor -- and patience -- in protecting the game from blemish or stain or disgrace."

-- A. Bartlett Giamatti
August 24, 1989

Possibly we should consider following his position.

[Wolf Hopper]

Being unforgiving is protection? Anyway, this is off topic from this thread. Let's stick to the interview comments Boomer - thanks.

[Elmo]

MLB.com has a real player version of the Primtime Live Piece for anyone who missed it or would like to see it again.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_news.jsp?ymd=20040109&content_id=626573&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[cardinaldave]

Pete Rose has managed to become an even more tragically pathetic figure. Everything that is happening right now is being done to serve two purposes:to get him reinstated before the end of 2005 (when he comes off the BBWAA ballot & goes to the Veteran's Committee) and, of course, to make some cash.
Rose knows he has no shot w/ the Vets, therefore he is desperately short on time. His meager attempts at contrition are no more than reactions to the outrage at his lack of contrition. Too late and unconvincing. He still does not believe he did any great crime. He says he's sorry, but I get the idea that he doesn't really know what he's apologizing for.
But, even the Rose supporters have to hear all of the 'I's and 'me's in everything he says. With him, what's going on isn't about what he did to baseball, or to the fans, or to his players. It's about what is happening to Pete Rose. And it is that self-service that should keep him out of the game. If they can find a way to get him in the Hall, fine. I really don't care anymore. But he must be kept out of the game!
If he really cared about baseball he would just go away. Let the continuous embarassment come to an end. Act quickly, Mr. Selig. Please!

[cubfan33]

Isn't it AWFULLY damned telling that MLB.com would get that interview and put it up on their site? This is the OFFICIAL site of Baseball. OFFICIAL.

[Elmo]

Isn't it AWFULLY damned telling that MLB.com would get that interview and put it up on their site? This is the OFFICIAL site of Baseball. OFFICIAL.

without a statement on the matter....at least that I have seen....

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of course, the interview was self-serving. It revealed Rose as the arrogant, unrepentant individual that he is.

The interview convinced me that Rose is a sociopath; his admissions are not contrition; they are part of a strategy to help him get what he wants.

Like a criminal, Rose blames Dowd for his methods, even though, in retrospect, Dowd came to the correct conclusion about what Rose was doing.

The interview changed my perception of Rose, in that while there is no allegations of, nor proof of Rose throwing games, I would not be surprised if he were gambling on baseball AND throwing games all the way back to his playing days. I emphasize that there is no proof of this, and I also emplhasize that I am not alleging this, but there is a difference between "candor" and "honesty". Rose's selective candor reflected, to me, a liar.

I have never liked Rose, and I am not one of his legion of fans. I do think that he should be dealt with based on what is proven. Not what my imagination may conjure up, and not his character. This is America; we deal with people based on what they DO, not on what they ARE.

I believe Rose's suspension should be lifted. He has not been found to have thrown games; this hasn't been alleged. I believe there is a world of difference between what he had admitted to in the interview, and what there is evidence to support, and what Hal Chase, Chick Gandil, et. al. did back in the day.

However, I also think that no owner in his right mind should hire Rose for anything more than a spring training batting coach.

Rose's revelation that he gambles on horses and that he owns interest in a racehorse is like an addict who completes treatment, then becomes a bar owner and drinks beer. If Rose is a "gambling addict", HE HAS ALREADY RELAPSED!

Unsuspend Rose; let him in the HOF. He didn't throw games. He was a great player. But let the interview be a character reference AS WELL AS A RISK ASSESSMENT for owners who may want him as their franchise's front man, in order to turn a buck.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe Rose's suspension should be lifted. He has not been found to have thrown games; this hasn't been alleged. I believe there is a world of difference between what he had admitted to in the interview, and what there is evidence to support, and what Hal Chase, Chick Gandil, et. al. did back in the day.

However, I also think that no owner in his right mind should hire Rose for anything more than a spring training batting coach.

Rose's revelation that he gambles on horses and that he owns interest in a racehorse is like an addict who completes treatment, then becomes a bar owner and drinks beer. If Rose is a "gambling addict", HE HAS ALREADY RELAPSED!

Unsuspend Rose; let him in the HOF. He didn't throw games. He was a great player. But let the interview be a character reference AS WELL AS A RISK ASSESSMENT for owners who may want him as their franchise's front man, in order to turn a buck.

Upon further reflection, I wish to refute this position, which I have long held.

Pete Rose is a danger to baseball, if employed. The interview convinced me of this. He is a gambling addict in active relapse.

I wouldn't hire a cocaine addict who owned a bar and drank beer to manage my cash business; he is in active relapse, and a threat to make off with the day's deposits at any time.

And I wouldn't hire a complusive gambler to a position in MLB where he would be privvy to all sorts of insider information that gamblers could benefit from, at the expense of the game.

Dowd and Giamatti were right. I was wrong.

Let Rose stay in exile!

[hmrsf]

In '89 I believed that Rose was innocent. I was very vocal in defending him. I hated Dowd and Giamotti.

Now, I am an adult and know he is guilty. Not until the other night did the kid in me really know. I have to tell you it was a sad night.

All of us want redemption. We want to be forgiven for any wrong we do. There are some wrongs that can't be undone.

Pete Rose now wants to be an ambassador to baseball. He will be a reminder to all not to bet on baseball. That is the best he can hope for now.

[cardinaldave]

I was one of the many who said it is a shame that Pete Rose, the Hit Leader of All-Time, is not in the Hall of Fame. I said it's his word against theirs. That Pete Rose loves the game of baseball more than his own life. I spent the last 14 years believing that Pete Rose was wronged by a conspiracy that left the most irritating of all opponents (I'm a Cardinals fan) out in the proverbial cold. When I kept hearing the idiotic media say "All he has to do is admit that he bet on baseball, he'll be back in", I thought "what a stupid concept". If w/in the first couple months, or so, yes: confess and receive absolution. But once it got to be years, I thought, clearly he didn't do this and they are all assholes for doing this to him. After about the 2nd year, any admission of betting on baseball would kill the iconic image of Rose. And kill the idea that HE INSTILLED IN US that he was innocent of these crimes.

So now, here we are 14 years later and: it's not a shame Rose isn't in the Hall, but rather would be a shame if he were. Not because of the gambling (even on baseball), but because of the shameless lying, self promotion & money grubbing he did along the way to his 'confession'. That any hope of Pete actually being a victim were dashed and the realization that he is, in fact, the dirty, low down, scummy crook that had been alleged. And HE STILL HAS SHOWN NOTHING TO REFUTE THIS! He is not only a self serving, corrupt, lying, crooked, deceitful old man, but he has shown that he loves Pete Rose more than he could ever possibly love the game of baseball!

[Domeboys]

I had been leaning toward supporting letting Rose, the player, become eligible for HOF consideration now. However, as a result of recent events, I now favor the idea of Selig stalling (first time I can ever say that). Let Rose's fate be put in the hands of the Veterans Commitee in several years. I would never, ever, let him back in uniform again no matter what.

I captured most of the Primetime and GMA dialogue in this article, if you'd rather do a quick read than listen to the clips.

http://www.creativesports.com/newsmanager/templates/csplus.asp?articleid=1196&zoneid=8

Several observations:

"Since the Primetime show was taped earlier, at that point, Rose was unaware of the current, severe backlash due to his lack of contrition over his admission that he gambled on the Reds while he was their manager."

"...note how Rose repeatedly says “you” rather than “me” or “I” throughout, as if he is talking about someone else..."

"Clearly in the second day, Rose was taking his case to the fans, knowing they are his most sympathetic audience and also likely well aware that the commissioner values public opinion very highly. Rose really sucked up to the commissioner, again recognizing that the last week’s events eroded his support."

[Fuzzy Bear]

For me? Or for a reasonable person ;)

A) a recognition that he broke a rule and was given the prescribed punishment.

b) that his personal tragedy is of his own making

c) that the hurt to baseball was of his making

d) the fact that other people have made poor personal decisions does not mitigate his own poor personal decisions.

That would be a start.

Then if he could go a few years without gambling(emphasis added), evading taxes, and publishing books with demonstrable lies and equivocations. Then we could revisit this......

I added the emphasis to this quote to re-emphasize a point in one of my earlier posts: PETE ROSE IS STILL GAMBLING!!!!!

I don't care a whole lot about the apology, etc. Pete Rose is a sociopath; what was given in the way of an apology is probably the best a guy like Rose can do.

However, for an addict, GAMBLING IS GAMBLING IS GAMBLING!!!!! If there are any folks here who have had personal problems with addictive gambling, or have had loved ones that did, perhaps they could post the relevance to the issue of what it means to be a gambling addict who quits betting illegally (baseball) but begins to bet legally (jai alai, horse racing, dog racing, etc.) How relieved would the families of such people be to know that their loved one is no longer at risk for arrest with his bookie, but merely goes out to the track to bet on the ponies or the pups? Perhaps an alcoholic who now just drinks beer can provide the answer. :D

[NJYANKEE]

I know the interview was a while ago but I wanted to add my $.02

I did not get the impression that Pete understands the gravity of what he did. I took his appology for what I saw it to be - a self serving attempt to do as little as possible to get reinstated.

To deny that it was his hand writing on betting slips even though a hand writing expert confirmed it.

To say "I don't remember" when asked if he had bet while he was a player/manager.

To say that he doesn't owe Giamatti or Dowd an apology after calling them liars for 14 years.

Pete has a long way to go if he's going to try to build back up all of the bridges he's burned.

[cardinaldave]

What is taking Bud Selig so long? It's time this lackey make his first grown up decision! If you want to be considered w/ Rozelle & Judge Landis, stand up and make a god damned decision, Bud! Tell the world that Pete Rose will not be allowed back in baseball. C'mon! Tell the world you care more about the integrity of baseball and less about the reaction of an ever decreasing minority of his supporters. Tell the world that no way, no how will this liar & cheat be allowed to be in a position to affect the outcome of a baseball game! Not on your watch! Come on, Bud! Act, man!

[Elmo]

What is taking Bud Selig so long? It's time this lackey make his first grown up decision! If you want to be considered w/ Rozelle & Judge Landis, stand up and make a god damned decision, Bud! Tell the world that Pete Rose will not be allowed back in baseball. C'mon! Tell the world you care more about the integrity of baseball and less about the reaction of an ever decreasing minority of his supporters. Tell the world that no way, no how will this liar & cheat be allowed to be in a position to affect the outcome of a baseball game! Not on your watch! Come on, Bud! Act, man!

Landis was as bad a liar and cheat as the players he banned - he only was given the job because he ruled against the Federal league. - he banned the easy people and didn't the harder people - the 22 series was probbaly worse than the 1919..

[cardinaldave]

"Baseball is something more than a game to an American boy. It is his training field for life work. Destroy his faith in its squareness and honesty and you have destroyed something more; you have planted suspicion of all things in his heart." -Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

Now, Landis was an autocrat, a tyrant, a segregationist, and heavy-handed to the point of unfairness. But, I have found no evidence that he ever treated anyone suspected of gambling w/ baseball or of throwing games, lightly. And he never ruled against the Federal League. He sat on his decision while the Feds crumbled and withdrew their suit.

Back to Pete: To let him back into baseball would destroy the core element of competition, which is the trust in fairness. Pete Rose has destroyed his ability to provide that trust. No second chances on this one.

[Elmo]

[QUOTE=cardinaldave]"Baseball is something more than a game to an American boy. It is his training field for life work. Destroy his faith in its squareness and honesty and you have destroyed something more; you have planted suspicion of all things in his heart." -Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

Now, Landis was an autocrat, a tyrant, a segregationist, and heavy-handed to the point of unfairness. But, I have found no evidence that he ever treated anyone suspected of gambling w/ baseball or of throwing games, lightly. And he never ruled against the Federal League. He sat on his decision while the Feds crumbled and withdrew their suit.[QUOTE]

OK, technically he didn't rule against it - but it's the same thing...and he got paid off for his action/inaction. Like most snake oil salesman he had his pitch (bah-dum) treating suspicions lightly was not his MO (although he ignored all kinds of things)....but that's not what I said, he was a two bit tyrant with all that goes with that. He was every bit as much of a shining moment for baseball as Bud Selig as commissioner.

[TGwynn19]

We're getting pretty far off track here. Does anyone have additional comments specifically about the Rose interview???

[Elmo]

We're getting pretty far off track here. Does anyone have additional comments specifically about the Rose interview???


Yeah...I hated Rose's suit and that '14' monogram on his collar... :D