"Charlie Hustled"
Pete has come "clean".......does it really matter?
January 5th, 2004
By: Matthew McGowan
Well, I guess the first thing I need to do is apologize to John Dowd and Fay Vincent. So here goes: "Guys, I am sorry I doubted you. You were right, and I was wrong. I apologize."
Anyone who has read my previous report on this subject knows why this is necessary. For those who are unaware, a few years back I did a good bit of research on the infamous "Dowd Report" and Major League Baseball's case against Peter Edward Rose. Everything I used in my report was already public record, and I believed that the evidence that was there at least supported the notion that the case was never really that strong, and that there was a chance that Pete really didn't do what everyone now knows he did, bet on MLB games, including games in which he had a duty to perform.
Since the time I posted that report on this website nearly three years ago, I have heard from many people all across the country. Most folks seemed to agree that looking at the case, as I presented it, there was no doubt that Pete had made some big mistakes that were hurtful to the game, yet there was the possibility that Pete was "railroaded out of the game" on the charge of betting on the Reds and should be reinstated at once.
But there were also folks who said I was nothing more than a naive Pete Rose fan who refused to look at all the facts. Well, looks like time has proved you right.
Though at the time of this writing all the facts have not been released to the public, a few things are now certain: Pete Rose did bet on baseball; he did bet on the Cincinnati Reds, the team he managed; and for the last 14 years, he has boldly lied to everyone about these facts.
I don't think anyone has ever accused Rose of being a saint. Likewise, I don't doubt for one second that gambling, much like drugs or alcohol, can become a powerful addiction, forcing otherwise decent people into doing things they normally would know better than to do. Also, regardless of what Pete has done, I still believe that for his career as a player, he deserves enshrinement in the Baseball Hall of Fame. (After all, if a player's character was truly criteria for enshrinement, Baseball's Hall of Fame would be a lot less full, and missing some of it's greatest names.)
That being said, I can no longer believe that Pete deserves complete and full reinstatement. I hope all of you realize how hard that sentence was for me to type (though the sting of being lied to for 14 years makes it much easier than it might have otherwise been), but it's what I really believe. As much as I loved Pete the ballplayer, Pete the man broke the one rule in baseball that is deemed unbreakable. Right or wrong, Pete violated "Major League Baseball Rule 21 (d)"; a rule so important it is posted in the clubhouse of every single Major League Baseball team, which states:
Any player,
umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any
baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall
be declared ineligible for one year.
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any
sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a
duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
Many people believe that this rule is excessively harsh, especially when compared to the ease drug and alcohol addicted players can get away with their crimes and continue to play. While that may or may not be true, it matters little. (And please, spare me the lectures about the "integrity of the game" being at stake when a participant gambles on the game. MLB hasn't had much integrity since they canceled the 1994 World Series over money, and I am personally more worried about juiced-up ballplayers influencing the outcome of the game than I am crooked managers.) Simply put, that was the rule, and Pete knowingly broke it. End of discussion.
However, at this time, it looks like Commissioner Bud Selig is still considering full reinstatement for Rose. If this is to be the case, then I would suggest a full amnesty for all those whose names are still on the ineligible list, including William Cox, owner of the Philadelphia Phillies who was accused of placing 15-20 bets on the Phillies in the early part of the 1943 season; Max Lanier, banned for jumping to the Mexican League to make more money; Horace Fogel, the Phillies owner who was banned for suggesting certain umpires were crooked; and, of course, Shoeless Joe Jackson. As this list shows you, many players who have spent time "banished from baseball" have already been reinstated. If baseball is to forgive Pete, then it's time to forgive the rest.
But it shouldn't stop there. Former baseball commissioner Fay Vincent has suggested that if Rose is to be reinstated to full rights in baseball, there should be a two-year period of transition. During this time, Rose should be required to travel the baseball highway to spell out to youngsters and fans why gambling is a threat to the game and why his decisions as manager were corrupted by betting on one game and not another. This way, the sincerity of his redemption can be tested and he will have done some public service to earn his way back. To me, that sounds more than reasonable. Meanwhile, I still think he should be eligible to be elected into the Hall of Fame, regardless. Pete Rose, the ballplayer, was among the best we'll ever see.
As far as Pete Rose, the person, well, that's not for me to judge. I can only express my disappointment at being lied to by my favorite ballplayer ever for so long, and my personal opinion that he never be allowed to manage again. The rest, as Pete himself says, is "up to the commissioner and the big umpire in the sky."