Home Contact New York News Photos 1 2 Reviews Sports Web Finds
Your Host
Site Tools
Categories
Archive
Greatest Hits
Photos
Interviews
Search



PaulKatcher.com
All of Web
Tuesday, January 6, 2004

Pete Rose Has a BIG Secret to Tell Us
Make sure you're seated before proceeding further. The news I am about to tell you will shock, amaze and shake the foundation of everything you have ever known about sports.

Ladies and gentlemen, Pete Rose bet on baseball.

I know. I know. I couldn't believe it either. (If you are experiencing respiratory problems after learning of this earth-shattering news, please move away from the computer and lay down for at least one minute.)

It took about 58 years longer than most, but 62-year-old Pete Rose (see lifetime stats) has learned that honesty is the best policy, and this week is making his shocking confession that he laid some coin on Major League Baseball games while a manager of the Cincinnati Reds in the late '80s.

Rose, a 17-time All-Star, had a 44-game hitting streak in 1978 snapped 12 games short of Joe DiMaggio's all-time mark, but his streak of most consecutive years as Man With the Worst Haircut on Earth remains alive. He is also a bad liar.

Let's go back to the interview with NBC's Jim Gray before Game 2 of the 1999 World Series, when Rose was honored as a member of the All-Century team and received a warm reception from Braves fans, who, for whatever reason, decided to attend a postseason game for a change.

Gray: Pete, congratulations, it was quite an ovation.

Rose: Heart-stopping.

Gray: Pete, let me ask you now. It seems as though that there is an opening. The American public is very forgiving. Are you willing to show contrition, admit that you bet on baseball and make some sort of apology to that effect?

Rose: No, no, Jim, not at all. I'm not going to admit to something that didn't happen. I know you get tired of hearing me say that, but I appreciate the ovation. I appreciate the American fans voting me on that All-Century team. I'm just a small part of a big deal tonight.

Gray: With the overwhelming evidence that is in that report, why not make that step with this opening...

Rose: It's too much of a festive a night to worry about that. I don't know what evidence you're talking about. I mean, show it to me.

Gray: Well, the Dowd report says, but we don't want to debate that, Pete.

Rose: Well, why not? Why do we want to believe everything he says?

Gray: You signed a paper acknowledging the ban. Why did you sign it if you didn't agree with it?

Rose: It also says I can apply for reinstatement after one year, if you remember correctly. In the press conference, as a matter of fact, my statement was I can't wait for my little girl to be a year old so I can apply for reinstatement. At my press conference. So you forgot to add that clause that was in there.

Gray: Well, you have reapplied. You've applied for reinstatement in 1997. Have you heard back from Commissioner Selig?

Rose: No, and that kind of surprises me. It's only been two years, though, and he's got a lot of things on his mind. But I hope to someday.

Gray: Pete, it's been 10 years since you've been allowed on the field. Obviously, the approach that you have taken has not worked. Why not, at this point, take a different approach?

Rose: Well, when you say it hadn't worked, what do you exactly mean?

Gray: You're not allowed in baseball. You're not allowed to earn a living in the game you love. And you're not allowed to be in the Hall of Fame.

Rose: Well, I took that approach and that was to apply for reinstatement. I hope Bud Selig considers that and gives me an opportunity. I won't need a third chance. All I need is a second chance.

Gray: Pete, those who will hear this tonight will say that you have been your own worst enemy and continue to be. How do you respond to that?

Rose: In what way are you talking about?

Gray: By not acknowledging what seems to be overwhelming evidence.

Rose: Yeah, I'm surprised you're bombarding me like this. I mean I'm doing an interview with you on a great night, a great occasion, a great ovation. Everybody seems to be in a good mood, and you're bringing up something that happened 10 years ago.

Gray: I bring it up because I think people would like to see you get it on. Pete, we got to go, we've got a game...

Rose: This is a prosecutor's brief. It's not an interview, and I'm very surprised at you. I am, really.

Gray: Well, Some would be surprised that you didn't take the opportunity. Let's go.....

Gray took a lot of heat from media and fans for his aggressiveness, but I thought was a great American moment: asking a phony to be forthcoming. You might recall Yankees outfielder Chad Curtis refusing to speak to Gray after hitting a walkoff home run in Game 3 of the Series. I thought it was a dumb protest then, and that certainly hasn't changed now.

I love the part where Pete says, "I'm not going to admit to something that didn't happen." Maybe he should've added, "unless you pay $17.47 + shipping on Amazon.com for my new book, My Prison Without Bars."

But this is America. We love to give people a second chance. It makes everyone feel good. It's a mystery why it took Rose so long to figure out this was, by far, the best of his options. Then again, he does find it acceptable to walk out of his house with that haircut.

Other Pete Rose Links:

Vote: What Now for Pete Rose? — See how your opinions on 10 Rose-related questions rank with other fans on ESPN SportsNation.

The Confessions of Pete Rose — Fay Vincent, the baseball commissioner who succeeded Bart Giamati, cautions us in a New York Times op-ed against embracing Rose, whom he says, "spent the last 14 years calling John Dowd and me names."

Put Rose in Hall, Not in a Dugout — Ian O'Connor writes in USA Today that Rose "lies for a living" and "has forfeited the right to be a manager, a coach, a scout, or spring training instructor."

Rose Still Faces Long Odds on Getting to Hall of Fame — An AP story on Rose's eligibility for Cooperstown.

Category: Sports | Permalink | Post a Comment (14)


Comments: Pete Rose Has a BIG Secret to Tell Us

If Pete Rose is somehow, by some unknowable reason, reinstated and then elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame, it will be a slap in the face to A. Bartlett Giamatti- and all of baseball.

To quote the article in the NYTimes, "Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball in August 1989 under an agreement in which he was ousted for illegal gambling without baseball being specified." He agreed. Now, after scorching John Dowd for 14 years for (as it turns out) an accurate investigative report, after lying to the fans, his teammates, the author of his first autobiography (who says he is embarrassed- that he had asked Rose "20 times" if he had betted on baseball and that Rose had looked him in the eye and said he hadn't)...after all that, he is hoping for reinstatement and election to the Baseball Hall of Fame?

The rules for election into the Hall of Fame include this portion: "voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Dream on, Rose.

Posted by lucy at January 6, 2004 1:28 AM

As Jim Rome said today, all he has to do is admit it and put forth an honest apology and he will win the support of many people. But he isn't doing it. He may be admitting to betting, but is not showing any remorse. Rose is doing this to sell some books. Also, he probably should be in the HOF, but a buddy of mine correctly pointed out that there should also be a caveat on his plaque about his negatives (this is done with other players, and there are plenty of awful individuals in the Halls of Fame).

Posted by Cory at January 6, 2004 2:31 AM

Look, if O.J. can murder two people and keep his place in the hall of fame, why deny the all-time hits leader his spot? Even if he is an idiot with a gambling problem?

Posted by Chris at January 6, 2004 9:35 AM

In addition to all the smarmy things Rose has done, he's timed this book's release for the week that the latest Hall of Fame inductees are announced (later today).

Unfortunately, the Rose talk is taking the attention away from Paul Molitor (the Brewers won't have another Hall of Famer for at least 25-30 years minimum) and possibly Dennis Eckersley, if he gets in today.

Posted by Joe DiGiovanni at January 6, 2004 10:34 AM

Pete Rose was ousted from Baseball because he gambled. Now he is admitting that he gambled ON BASEBALL and because of that they will consider letting him back in?!? Am I missing something in that logic.

OHHH, now I get it this is not real world logic it's Bud Selig logic.

I do not care what Rose says, if he bet on the Reds then he probably bet against them too. Keep that bum out of baseball and out of the Hall.

Posted by Corey Holzer at January 6, 2004 11:44 AM

Looking back, if Rose bets on the Reds to win for a few games, and then takes a game off and doesn't bet, then it is essentially a bet against them. The people making the odds, if they were aware of this, would think to themselves "well he isn't betting for the Reds for this game...he must know something" - and this will affect bets made, possibly the line depending on how high up this was. Who knows the extent of it at this point, but bets coming from a team manager is the same thing as insider trading. If someone acts on something based on their inside knowledge, there is probably a reason they did so.

Posted by Cory at January 6, 2004 12:43 PM

I can't believe someone actually listens to Jim Rome....and then bothers to post his thoughts on you site Paul. Please edit this garbage. Oh yeah, it should be mandated that the day Pete Rose dies is the day he is reinstated. This scumbag deserves sympathy from nobody. Too bad he blew all his cash gambling. Charlie's trying his best to hustle the public.

Posted by Jeffcaw at January 6, 2004 1:20 PM

I usually agree with Jim Rome's opinions, and he makes some good points on his website (which is pointless to link to because they re-use the same URLs for different content daily).

Rome says that Rose, as an all-out player and a man who broke one of baseball's sacred rules, is either a liar or the worst gambler in the world, when he says he didn't let his betting affect his managing.

Posted by Paul Katcher at January 6, 2004 2:02 PM

I'm trying to figure out if Jeffcaw was joking or not. You can't believe that someone listens to Rome? I don't know how to retort to that asinine statement.

And the only reason I brought up things that I heard on the show was because it was relevant and on point regarding PK's original post. If you disagree with something I say or something I refer to, then make a valid counter-argument and back it up. Don't just request that my opinions be edited out.

By the way, Paul, I know this is off topic but I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on Coughlin and the Giants. I'm from Buffalo, and therefore I'm following the coaching hunt pretty carefully (Jim Fassell especially).

Posted by Cory at January 6, 2004 5:54 PM

I'm not that jazzed about Coughlin. It seems he's a known quantity, and I didn't see anyone beating down his door the past couple of years to hire him.

Then again, Bill Belichick was not considered a genius in Cleveland, and now he's NFL Coach of the Year.

In the NFL, all teams begin the year with promise, so I will be pumped for the G-Men next season. This year, the New York football Giants were so lifeless.

Posted by Paul Katcher at January 6, 2004 11:11 PM

This whole thing is ridiculous. It really is.

If I said that I thought Rose did bet on the Reds and he bet against them and he threw games to win bets, I'd have quite a platform to stand on. At least, a better platform now that Rose's credibility over the last decade-and-a-half ranks somewhere below the Sabres' chances of winning the 2004 Stanley Cup in my mind.

Rose now has two crimes to deal with — a crime against baseball and one against the fans who wanted to believe him ever since Mr. Giamatti tossed him out.

Of course, Rose is trying to play the victim in all of this, because nobody at Major League Baseball would help him with his gambling problem. Apparently, Rose was too busy signing autographs at the Pete Rose Museum in Cooperstown, or running his restaurant in Florida. He's capable of all of this on his own, but walking into a gambling treatment center requires the help of Major League Baseball? Apparently, being responsible will take him a little longer than 62 years.

Posted by Kevin Wilson at January 7, 2004 3:18 AM

Lucy,

whether you know it or not the EXACT wording works against you..

"...to the team(s) on which the player played."

PLAYED is the key word. He bet when he was a manager (and don't give me that player manager crap either - that's a technicality for people looking for one )

I want to pose this. Everyone talks about the integrity of the game. What about the integrity of the Hall? What good is a Hall of Fame if the best players aren't represented?

Ty Cobb was a racist and a horrible man and conducted himself that way every game, babe ruth didn't have the highest moral standards, and so on so forth. They are in the hall among many other deplorable players.

The Hall of Fame in this case should be SEPARATED from a proposed reinstatement. Rose should be inducted, BUT NOT allowed to coach or participate in any way again. That way he is honored the way he SHOULD be, but he can't be working in baseball in any form to screw up again.

What it boils down to is an egotistical testosterone pumping, my dick is bigger than yours, pride battle between rose and the commish(s). They are too nearsited to realize that they are compromising the validity of the Hall to show that they are bigger than him. Great, you guys showed him. Now can the fans - and we are many by the by - have our way? Because isn't it all about us in the end?

Posted by Luke at January 7, 2004 1:59 PM

What I can't understand is why everyone is trying to prevent the sanctity of a game -- by keeping Rose out of the HOF -- whose players today admit taking "performance enhancing" drugs?

The game is just that, a game. And it's already tainted. Letting Rose into the HOF as a player won't change that. He played hard and earned his stats, so I think he should be in.

But I won't lose any sleep over it if he never makes it.

Posted by bhw at January 7, 2004 11:17 PM

Okay, I need sleep. Make that "protect" not "prevent" in the first sentence, and then maybe it will make sense.

Posted by bhw at January 7, 2004 11:18 PM
Post a comment
















Fark.com
- [Interesting] Crips and Bloods still keeping it real ... in New Zealand. Wait, what?

- [Amusing] Police searching for teeny tiny gang of horse thieves after 28-inch pony stolen from field (pic)

- [Photoshop] Photoshop these ancient columns

- [Asinine] From the Department of Redundancy Department: Texas issues a report declaring that Texas has too many reports. Bonus: Report is 668 pages long and took 18 months to compile

- [Hero] Woman on crutches rescued from rapist by five bystanders (With scary mugshot goodness)

Yahoo! News: Most Emailed
- Los Angeles in a stew over taco trucks (The Christian Science Monitor)

- Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama (AP)

- Ants swarm over Houston area, fouling electronics (AP)

- McCain's wife sells Sudan-related investments (AP)

- Swiss man soars above Alps with jet-powered wing (AP)

Yahoo! News: Sports News
- Celtics beat Cavs 96-89 to take 3-2 lead in series (AP)

- No. 1 Justine Henin retires from tennis immediately (AP)

- Sen. Specter wants independent investigation into Spygate (AP)

- Stars avoid sweep, send West finals back to Detroit (AP)

- Reds recover for 7-6 win over Marlins in 10 innings (AP)

Web Friends
News
Sports
New York City
Sex
Internet
Guitar
Powered by Movable Type 3.31.