BP on Pete Rose

[KCBOOMER]

Guys, you really want to get over to baseball prospectus and read the two articles on there about Pete Rose and his banning from baseball. Derek Zumstag has done a fabulous job of going through the report and telling us what he sees there. He also compares his analysis to Bill James' analysis of the Dowd Report that was in the BJNHBA.

[SmedIndy]

I saw those. May the debates commence!

[Skip]

I really don't mind the ban from MLB. I don't think that should equate to a ban from the HOF. I don't think MLB should have the right to play pick-and-choose games over events he can be there for and not. I can't imagine I'll change my mind on any of these three statements.

That said, I don't plan to further join this week's version of the Rose debate.

[sweaver]

More required reading on this, from the blog Only Baseball Matters, with opinions from many sides: http://onlybaseball.blogspot.com/

[pwdennis]

Interesting stuff but until Pete 'fesses up , I think the HOF ban should remain. As for the fans having forgiven Pete, that's a split decision - the casual certainly has forgiven Pete, but most of the more knowledgeable have at least reserved judgment

Then again, the casual fan believes that a hitter who hits .300 is automatically better than a .275 hitter

[VNV Nation]

To me this issue is like debating Bill Clinton's impeachment. Rose and Clinton were polarizing figures long before their legal problems (it's hard to remember now, but in the 1970s Rose and was THE GUY you went to see just to boo in the NL) and while evidence may convince a few people one way or another, the majority of people are not going to be swayed one way or another.

Arguing about how MLB should treat Rose, when and why it should allow him to participate in some events and not others, whether or not he has paid his debt, etc. are all fair subjects at this point.

But to sit and try to pick over the details of the Dowd Report just seems an exercise in futility. It's like trying to solve the Jack the Ripper case: too many facts have grown cold and too much has transpired since for anyone to think they can really get a straight read on where things were in 1989. Frankly we probably have a better perspective on Jack the Ripper.

Just a few points here:

1. Regardless of how you feel about them, attorneys are, in general, among the most competent of professionals and they are generally exceptionally intelligent, persuasive, well-trained and great at their chosen speciality.

Baseball writers and baseball fans, are not legal experts, lawyers are. Evidence is inherently not neutral. I think Bill James has a relevant observation on this topic: "The FBI says (the infamous slips of paper) are betting slips. If Rose were acccuse of being the Unabomber, the FBI would say they're bomb blueprints."

I think NDF's own Lee Sinins has the best comments on this, on the blog Sweaver provided a link to:

The Dowd Report was a prosecutor's brief. Dowd was hired by MLB to prosecute the case. Prior to leaving the profession to go into computers, I was a criminal defense attorney. And I will tell you that the idea that a prosecutor is a neutral party who just looks to find the truth is a bunch of bullshit. Once an individual is targeted as the suspect, the prosecutor's job is to convict. His job is to find whatever is there and convict. Nobody in the legal field even pretends it's anything else.

A prosecutor's brief will inherently be a one sided document. It will contain a fair review of the facts. The more a set of facts is disputed, the farther a prosecutor will go to make his case look as strong as it can.

...

Give me the resources of a prosecutor (either a real one or one who has the backing of the resources of MLB), give me access to a bunch of unsavory people who I can make any kind of deal I want for them to implicate someone and I can guarantee you I'll come up with evidence, which if that's all you see, will be enough to convict anyone of any crime I'm in the mood to convict you of.

...

The only hope for our system to work is for there to a defense who can point out that problems. As we know, without hearing the other side, which we haven't in the Rose case, it is folly to just believe the prosecution.

This is a key point people overlook. MLB was not investigating this matter in an attempt to discover the truth. We can all agree that Rose was involved with a multitude of unsavory characters, he was involved in illegal activity, and, as a law student points out on the blog:

MLB took the safe road and created a Paper Wall (an old District Attorney trick). The DA convinces the suspected criminal that there is no hope of escaping justice/punishment. However, the DA may want to limit the scope of public knowledge of how they gathered the information; perhaps illegal wire taps were used, or an undercover agent might be put in harms way if a case went to trial, or a larger investigation would be hindered by the (relatively) minor charges to the individual.
...
Consider the situation again in context of the time. MLB was in a crucial time period where television deals, advertising and marketing were all in a lull. A negative stain against baseball could mean hundreds of millions of dollars and a poster boy of what the sport was supposed to mean, Charlie Hustle, in a federal penitentiary.

The paper wall allowed Pete Rose to avoid dragging the personal life of a true major league son-of-a-bitch into the light, as well as obscuring the fact that MLB had known about the gambling, et al., for years and was essentially not publicly willing to do anything about it until the Fed's were involved.

John Dowd was no more neutral to the fate and guilt of Pete Rose than Ken Starr was unbiased in his investigation of Bill Clinton.

What this "case" still lacks, from my point of view are:
1. Documentation of specific allegations, as Bill James mentions, specific details that Pete Rose made this bet on this date, the outcome of the bet and payments, etc.

2. Testimony from a credible source with first-hand knowledge. By credible I mean someone who does not have a personal stake in the outcome or someone who was not granted immunity or someone not involved in illegal activity. Dave Concepcion or a fan or a security guard or Sparky Anderson or John Franco, someone, anyone. Someone who heard Pete Rose say, "Damn, Mike Scott cost me $5,000 the other day.

[moose]

Lee's comments are why i dont put much stock in the Dowd Report.

Lawyers wear many hats, including that of an advocate. when you're an advocate, you put facts in the light most favorable to your position.

[Fuzzy Bear]

To me, this topic involves three (3) separate issues:

1. The implications of the Dowd report (i. e. What was Rose's actual wrongdoing as far as gambling went?)

2. The agreement that Pete Rose signed with baseball which incluced no finding on the part of baseball that Rose actually bet on games.

3. The policy of the HOF (implemented at the request of MLB) banning the induction of any player who is currently under suspension. (Obviously, for a player to be under suspension who would otherwise be eligible for induction, an offense that was a threat to the integrity of the game would have to be alleged.)

I agree with the current policy of no HOF induction for players under suspension. HOF induction is an HONOR. HONOR should not be given to those who are suspended for tearing the game down in some way, and have not completed their suspension. Would we honor a convicted felon as "Father of the Year"? Probably not, unless he first got off probation, or finished his jail sentence and made some sort of demonstration that he was able to live correctly. We do not honor the disgraced until they are first restored. Pete Rose is not yet restored.

So the question becomes "Should Pete Rose be resored?" Should MLB lift his suspension? I believe they should.

I agree with VNV Nation that picking over the details of the Dowd report is an exercise in futility. The conclusions were not clear at the time it was written as to Rose's real involvement in gambling.
What is clear to me is that MLB offered, and Rose accepted, an agreement in this matter in which MLB issued NO OFFICIAL FINDING THAT PETE ROSE BET ON BASEBALL. This fact, in my opinion, is screaming for recognition that seems to be scant in coming. What actually happend is that, just after announcing this agreement with Rose, the late Commissioner Bart Giamatti stated that, IN HIS OPINION, Rose bet on baseball, and issued the suspension.

The Bible says "let your 'yea' be 'yea' and your 'nay' be 'nay'." Obviously, someone in MLB missed Sunday School, because baseball said "Nay, we do not find you to have gambled." to get Rose's signature, only to have its Commissioner, in the next breath say, "Yay, gambler, thou art suspended." MLB, itself, agreed with Rose that he would not be found to have bet on baseball. Why should they not live up to that agreement? They made it, did they not? Would you want yourself, or a loved one, dealt with by an employer, the justice system, or anyone else with leverage to deal in such a manner? On this basis alone, Rose should not have been suspended in the first place.

Which leads to issue of "What did Rose do, and what should be the penalty for it?"
I personally believe that Rose bet on baseball, at some point. I don't know how often, and we may never know, but I believe he did; there is evidence that he did bet on baseball.

There is NO evidence, however, that Rose threw games, or conspired to throw games, and that is a different matter.

Paul Hornung and Alex Karras were suspended for one (1) season for betting on NFL football. They were reinstated the next year. I know that some do not think this a valid precedent because of a perception that baseball has had a longstanding problem with gambling. While baseball had an era where gamblers almost ruined the game, gambling has not been a problem for baseball on that scale since the Black Sox Scandal. Gambling has always been a problem in football, college and pro, because of the nature of the game, the issue of point spreads, and the ease in which a football game can be fixed without the culprit being easily detected.

I believe that Rose's suspension, to date, has been sufficient penalty for betting on baseball. I don't believe he should be required to "come clean" and "fess up". Baseball has no official finding that Rose bet on baseball, so, in a legal sense, what does he have to "fess up" to?

Betting on baseball that doesn't involve throwing games should not carry a lifetime ban for a first offense, IMO. Rose should be punished in line with Hornung and Karras. I doubt any team would have him as anything more than a coach these days, and I can't see him even wanting to be involved in the game on that basis, but he has, IMO, paid his debt, based on precedent, AND BY BASEBALL'S OWN RULES, WHICH CALL FOR A ONE YEAR SUSPENSION ONLY FOR PLAYERS/MANAGERS WHO BET ON BASEBALL (rule 21, section d). Precedent, by the way, indicates that everyone who HAS been suspended for life was suspended for THROWING OR CONSPIRING TO THROW GAMES, not for betting.

It's time for MLB's "yay" to be "yay" and lift Rose's suspension, not so he can go in the HOF, but so MLB can be consistent with its own rules and proclamations governing this matter.

[Jim Rice]

I think the issue over whether or not it was fair for Major League Baseball to ban Rose for life is moot - the agreement Rose signed explicitly states that he was agreeing to a lifetime ban. It only granted him the right to REQUEST reinstatement after a year, it was far from a guarantee that it would be granted.

As far as the nature of Dowd Report goes, I agree completely that it is a slanted document, one specifically designed to state the case against Pete Rose. Reading it by itself will not tell you the true story of Pete Rose's gambling habits, whether they involved baseball and the Reds or not. That said, it's also the only evidence available because PETE ROSE WON'T TELL HIS STORY. The scanty denials he has issued through the years have nothing that even approaches the weight of the Dowd Report. Just as there is no single person out there who says "I know for a fact Pete bet on Reds games," etc., there is also no one coming forward saying "I know for a fact that Dowd's witnesses lied". This isn't a court of law - there is no presumtion of innocence here. Both Major League Baseball and the Hall of Fame are privately owned institutions that set their own rules for conduct. They have every right to impose a ban that prevents Rose from working for them or being honored by them. It might not be fair and it might not be just, but it's a fact that Rose knew when he started calling bookies from the Reds' clubhouse.

I work for GE, which has a very specific code of conduct for its employees. The rules are posted everywhere and I have to re-affirm my agreement to those rules annually. It's not at all unlike baseball's rules regarding gambling. I know that if I violate those rules I'm fired, just as Rose knew that if he violated baseball's he would be fired too. If GE suspected me of violating one of those policies - say by providing confidential information to a competitor - and was able to produce phone records from my office to a competitor, plus witnesses who worked for that competitor who testified that I violated the rule, I would have to defend myself to keep from being fired. If I didn't, that's my problem. That is Rose's problem too. If he really didn't do what they say he did - specifically, betting on baseball - then it's his responsibiltiy to present evidence to the contrary. Or, failing that, if he felt he got a raw deal and that baseball had slandered him by proclaming publicly that he was fired for betting on baseball, then he should sue them for slander.

Rose has done neither. Not only has he failed to present any real evidence that he didn't bet on the game or that the Dowd Report witnesses lied, he also hasn't sued baseball for slander, wrongful termination, or any other offense which would allow his case to be heard in a court of law where stricter rules of evidence would apply. For me, the ball is squarely in Rose's court. The next step - whether it be the issuance of a report that documents his own evidence, or a lawsuit against baseball, or an apology and admission of guilt - is clearly Pete's to make. Until he decides to make such a move, his protests are nothing more than hot air from a man who can't get over the fact that he's now infamous instead of famous.

[Max Power]

Sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, I think Rose's biggest crime was being stupid.

Cobb and Speaker were nailed for game fixing. But, they got off the hook, basically, because if they were busted/tossed, it would have been a black mark on the game - and, they played that to the hilt. Plus, some think that they would have fingered many more on the way out - - really kicking up a dark cloud.

Ball Four told a lot. But, I'm sure there are other less than pretty things that could be shared about baseball's underbelly that a guy like Rose would know about - - - things that could have really made this more of a black eye for baseball than for Rose.

But, Rose never played that card - - - probably thinking "If I do, I'll never get in the HOF. If I go this route, I'll do a little time and then get back in and will be fine."

Problem is - - - baseball played the foolie on him and changed directions. And, if Rose did go the "tell all" route now - - - it doesn't help his case - -- makes it worse, the act of a desperate man, and the stories would be less believable.

Like I said, stupid. One would think Rose, being the "hustler" that he is, would have been a better card player?

[sweaver]

There was no solid evidence against Cobb and Speaker, just unsubstantiated allegation. It was serious enough to get a tacit agreement that neither of the two would manage again. Of course, "fixing" a batting race was not beyond many people in that day and age.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by sweaver
There was no solid evidence against Cobb and Speaker, just unsubstantiated allegation. It was serious enough to get a tacit agreement that neither of the two would manage again. Of course, "fixing" a batting race was not beyond many people in that day and age.

Sweav -- what I read made it sound like there was a ton of evidence - - on fixing a game - - nothing to do with a batting race.

[sweaver]

If there was actually a "ton of evidence," Landis would have thrown them out on their ears, regardless of who they were. He had some allegations, too much to ignore, but not enough even for the renowned Commissioner to pass sentence. Landis was imperious, egotistical, and way too pompous, but even he knew the law too well to pass sentence without sufficient evidence. If he'd had that evidence, the gavel would have swung.

The batting title reference refers to the common practice of laying back and allowing bunts to fall for hits, or other such shenanigans that were used in games that did not factor in the pennant race, to help pad one popular player's batting average, and help them to win a title (which then often carried a cash reward or big prize, as well as great prestige) over a less popular player, say Cobb. Everyone seemed to look the other way on such things, although a ruckus was raised. It didn't seem to occur to anyone that "throwing" a batting race would be the same as "throwing" a game.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's a quick question: If, in fact, baseball rules call for a 1 year suspension for betting on games, why was Rose put in the position he was in?

If he agreed to this "lifetime ban" I can't see the benefit. It's like taking a 25 to Life sentence on a minor felony; it's not a good deal on the face of things.

If MLB wanted to allege that Pete Rose threw games, than they need to put up or shut up. They don't even have an official finding that he BET on games.

I am normally not in favor of quick, easy solutions for the purpose of "getting this thing behind us" as the benefits to this are usually disproportionately tilted toward those responsible for the thing that needs to get behind us. However, in this case, given the FACTS of the matter, and given all baseball has gone through since then, I think it would be good for the fans, and good for the game if this suspension was lifted. If baseball had proven its case, that would be one issue. They opted not to prove it. They need to live up to the agreements they made.

I also do not believe that reinstating Rose would be "detrimental to the game". Baseball needs A LOT of healing after one destructive strike, and the events that preceded the recent labor agreement in MLB.

I also do not believe, contrary to perception, that Judge Landis would have suspended Rose for life. I believe that Landis would have suspended him for one year, and only one year, absent any proof that he threw games. Landis never gave a lifetime suspension to someone who merely bet; they either threw games, or were part of such a conspiracy. This case has been evaluated by many according to the WWLD (What Would Landis Do?) standard, so I feel compelled to add this last paragraph.

[Skip]

Unless I am mistaken Fuzzy, you misread the rules. It's one year for betting; but lifetime for betting on your team (or games you have a stake in or something like that). The finding was Rose bet on the Reds, hence the lifetime ban. You didn't have to throw the games or even bet against your own team to be banned.