***From Knight Ridder News Service***
New York -- Pete Rose hurt his case when he rhapsodized earlier this week about managing a baseball team again.

Sources close to commissioner Bud Selig said Thursday that despite recent reports, Rose is no closer to reinstatement, and the odds that he'll ever manage a baseball club are still slim.

"Has he been a good citizen? Yes," the source said. "[But] have his comments had a deleterious effect on the timing of his case? Yes."

While Selig might be leaning toward a conditional reinstatement of baseball's career hits leader, every time Rose opens his mouth it frustrates the commissioner and delays the day when he will make a decision.

Rose told a Cincinnati television station earlier this week that he was confident he will return, but that he only wants to manage. If a team hires him, he said, it will be repaid with ticket sales.

"I don't want to coach," he told the Cincinnati Enquirer. "Let me tell you why: I can't afford to coach. I believe that if I sat down with the right people, I could explain to people -- and I'm not just talking [Cincinnati] now -- I could explain economically what I could do as far as attendance is concerned."

Most of his income now comes from paid appearances and memorabilia signings, and he would have to give up the circuit to serve as a major or minor league coach, making far less than a major league manager could.

Sources told the New York Daily News earlier this year that Selig would not consider Rose's request for reinstatement until after the World Series, and repeated Thursday that Selig still has not scheduled a date to talk to Rose.

To be eligible for a manager's job or for the Hall of Fame, Rose will have to be fully reinstated, with no conditions. And Major League Baseball sources have said consistently over the past year -- and again on Thursday -- that if Rose is allowed to return to the game in the near future it will be on a probationary basis.

Rose will have to publicly admit to gambling on baseball and on the Reds, he will have to start with peripheral jobs such as working as a team ambassador, then perhaps move to an instructor's position in the minor leagues before he thinks of wearing a major league uniform as a coach or manager.

Oddly, one of the most concise and cogent discussions I've heard about Pete Rose was between Brad Nessler and Bill Walton, during an NBA game. Nessler asked Walton whether he thought Rose should be reinstated. Walton's response: "No. What are the rules for if you don't follow them?"

Perfect!

~Adam

Ah, Pete Rose, the boy just can't help himself! Here he is, trying to prove he's through with gambling so he'll be reinstated in baseball--and now he's bought a race horse (no gambling at the track...) There are reports that Rose was at Santa Anita the Friday prior to the Breeders' Cup to watch his four-year-old gelding, Fort Point. The horse's trainer, Bob hess said: "Pete's a real nice guy who loves sports. He told me that once he's a manager in baseball again, he'll own lots of horses and bring his players into it, too."

~Adam

This man needs help, and soon!

Rob Neyer: Rose's new book (Jan. 8) will admit guilt, begin reinstatement

Oh so he's been innocent all this time but now he can sell a book (and make some more gambling money) so he'll own up. How sincere.

Pete seems to be a little disconnected from reality, doesn't he?

He's supposed to have a big dick though.

I wasn't aware that penis size was part of the hall of fame criteria.

Well I guess that depends on which Hall of Fame you are speaking of. wink

If penis size were the criteria, Joe DiMaggio would not have a bust in Cooperstown. I'm just sayin'.

I just threw that bit above in because I think Pete Rose is a pretty sad man at this point and I don't care who he gets to ghostwrite his book, I don't think he "gets it" at all. I've read nothing from him that indicates he's really remorseful about what he did. Getting caught? Sure! It's similar to the Non-apology apology thing that's talked about in the Johnny Morton/Matt Millen thread.

The Phila. Inquirer is reporting that Pete Rose finally admits in his forthcoming book that he bet on baseball games.

The way ABC is hyping their interview with him, if they really want their money's worth he needs to not only admit to betting on baseball, but also admit that he's gay and reveal where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. wink

So Rose "admits" he bet on baseball according to his book, eh? All along he's been denying it. Does that mean he was lying then or lying now?

Just wondering.

According to a poll on ESPN.com, over 30% of those responding think that Pete Rose should not only be allowed back into baseball but that he should be allowed to manage the Reds! If MLB wants to allow him into the Hall of Fame, fine. But how can they even think about letting him manage again?

Betting on baseball is one thing, and it is high time he admitted it. But having bet on his own team (even to win) IMHO should bar him forever from the Hall of Fame. If he had only bet on other teams, when the Reds were not playing them, I would think he had an argument for getting in the Hall of Fame, but having bet on the Reds, presumably when he was using his knowledge of the team and its opponents to only wager when he was sure of the win, is simply beyond the pale.

I think he should be kept out of the Hall of Fame until after his grand children are dead. The punishment should last three generations.

From the excerpt I read on the Sports Illustrated site, Pete Rose still doesn't seem to understand a player or manager betting on a game is damaging/wrong. Also, he seems to be admitting to the deed and apologizing for it solely for personal advantage (sort of like a child who apologizes only after its parent promises to give it a cookie.) The apology doesn't seem genuine and lacks all contrition. Another point: Hall of Fame announcement tomorrow gets obscurred by the Rose circus which I find sad. The timing of his apology should not be allowed to overshadow accomplishemnts of those players who will be spotlighted by the Hall of Fame.

~Adam

Jayson Stark on ESPN.com has a pretty good analysis, I think.

I agree totally.

Pete Rose seems not to be sorry in the least. His own words in print can be loosely translated as "yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sorry already. Now can I get back into baseball?"

and are you serious? He was actually telling people "when I'm an MLB manager again...."? Are you shitting me? what a freaking moron.

and... guess what? by his own words, it has been proven that he bet on his own team.

It's funny... the talking heads in the media are saying "he's still popular and everybody all along knew that he bet on baseball"
well.... I just had a conversation with a group of guys at the gym 2 weeks ago (pretty good timing. eh?) and these guys were INSISTING "I don't think Rose bet on baseball. and even if he did, He would NEVER bet on his own team."

So ... no. Not everybody was convinced he was guilty. Many (if not most) people who are your "everyday fans" actually believed until the end their idol to be innocent. These are the people who went to his signings and his appearances and were supporting his re-instatement.
Will their opinion change now? I think so.


This scumbag should NOT be reinstated and should NOT be put into the Hall of Fame.

His own admission simply proves what many of us suspected. But his admission does not wash away his gambling, cheating and lying.

[ January 05, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

He is a lying scumbag, but I also saw the guy play when I was little, and he gave everything as a player, using every shred of his talent. There were far better natural hitters, base stealers, fielders, than Rose, but he played like every game was the last one; I think a lot of the criticism of his admittedly unethical behavior obscures the fact that he holds the hits title and really played like a champion during his career.

Also, isn't the US the country of second (and third and fourth, etc.) chances? Didn't we give Richard Nixon a second chance after all his early misdeeds?

Rose was awful but the Hall of Fame isn't a character parade, it honors achievement on the field, in the sport. So put him in, but in a special rogues' gallery section, and make sure a huge red G or something is attached to his plaque.

[ January 05, 2004, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Well, despite all that stuff in the Hall bylaws about character or whatever, not everyone in their was a nice person. Yes, Ty Cobb, you racist ass****, I'm looking at you. Mickey Mantle, who played while hungover and let a riotous offield life, I'm looking at you.

But betting on your own team is another thing altogether. What a sad, pathetic man Pete Rose is.

For 14 years he called John Dowd and Fay Vincent liars. And he bet 4-5 times a week on 8-9 games at a time? Well, let's see....at the time, there were four divisions of 7 teams each -- meaning that there were only, on a day when everybody played, 14 games per day. So he not only bet on baseball, but bet on over half the games.

I would EVENTUALLY like to see Pete Rose inducted -- after he's dead.

Great column by Tom Boswell in this morning's Washington Post that addresses the Pete Rose "debate" perfectly -- including mentioning the two incidents (which I had heard Fay Vincent bring up in past interviews) when Rose tried to illegally transport 100K in CASH (hidden in suitcases) back into the U.S. after appearing at memorabilia shows/autograph signings in Japan....the only reason he avoided federal indictment was thanks to the efforts and legal assistance provided by Fay Vincent and MLB itself....this is the most insincere "apology" I have ever heard and is clearly motivated SOLELY by Pete's desire to sell books and pad his bank account.

Rose's legendary accomplishments on the field may be indisputable but he has been an embarrassment to the game for the past 14 years and his latest statements have done absolutely nothing to change that.

Tom Boswell's column: The Situation Is All That's Really Sorry

[ January 06, 2004, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

Such a lot of fuss over a .302 singles hitter.

In retrospect, are we happy we did? (Are you talking about his "early" misdeeds in the '40s -- Red-baiting to win elections -- or the '50s, '60s or '70s?? Misdeeds were his entire career...)

Betting on games results in a permanent ban. The End.

I have heard this character issue ad infinitum lately, and I must dismiss this as an invalid argument. The Hall is, indeed, populated by some men of less than stellar qualities: Womanizers, drunks, etc. With Rose, fantomas, there is a big difference, and that is Rule 21d, Baseball's only capital crime.

There is a huge difference between someone being a drunk, a womanizer, a bigot, etc. and someone who actively engages in something designed to damage the very game itself. This is what Rose did. He knew the consequences of his actions, and for years he lied about it. His lies still persist. He just won't admit it. He still doesn't get it.

Even Thomas Gioiosa, who used to share a house with Rose and ran bets for him, contradicted Rose on Tuesday, saying he did place bets from the Reds' clubhouse.

Rose's actions were, in Baseball's eyes, the worst thing he could do to the game. His penalty should be the same. There can be no other acceptable alternative.

Well said, ump (as usual)....now if only Bud Selig shares the same views and places character, honesty and integrity ahead of what he may perceive to be the "popular" decision, then maybe the adage of a baseball Commissioner who is elected to protect and look out for the "best interests of the game" really does still have some meaning after all.

Although I think it is a little sanctimonious of baseball to hold gambling higher than any other crime, I understand their rationale, and no one can deny they make the rule very clear. And no, I don't think Rose has really come clean - does anyone really think he ONLY bet on baseball in those few years (1985 - 1989), and only as many times as Dowd could document?

I agree with gamecock, Ump--well said. You always seem to be on point with your comments.

Following GC's comments, I really don't see Selig doing anything for the good of the game. Instead, I see someone who's interested in only how he looks in the public's eye. Bud will stick his finger in the air, see which way the wind blows, and go that direction.

He really is a spineless idiot.

On today's Pardon the Interruption, Kornheiser said that it's now being reported that Rose admitted to gambling on baseball in a private meeting with Bud Selig back in October! If this is indeed true, why did Selig sit on this bit of info? Why would he allow Rose to do this his way, make a profit and take away from this year's Hall of Fame election? Is Selig only concerned with cementing his leagcy as the man who resolved the Rose issue? Shame on Selig, but I guess I really shouldn't be surprised! Par for his course!

Actually, Mike Schmidt stated on an afternoon radio talk show on ESPN, that Rose admitted to Selig in a private meeting about 14 months ago. The interview with Schmidt was the most interesting that I've heard so far, because he has been close to Rose and the situation. Although, he has said a lot without saying "a lot" because he has been somewhat sworn to secrecy and the comments he can make are restrained. I picked up on some disappointment in his voice, about how things have played out with the early publicity.

I think we should all wait until the Thursday night interview and book (if you care to read it, I don't think I do) to draw our own conclusions. The media obviously is wanting us to start making judgments a little too early. Unfortunately, this topic has been all over talk radio for 2 days, but from listening to them my opinion of Rose and his "admission" is growing sour.

I'm not a bit surprised that Selig sat on the face to face interview where Rose admitted to betting. To make a big deal of it would have been giving Rose more attention than he was due from the official game. According to the paper here, that interview happened in 2002. Apparently, Rose waited awhile to see if MLB was going to respond.

I agree with most of the other guys' posts. Rose is self-serving. The rule is posted in every clubhouse, with the consequences clearly stated. He's got two years left according to the Hall of Fame rules to be allowed on the ballot. He's just grasping at straws, without any real remorse.

Rose's stats will stay in the record books, and his on the field accomplishments remain. It's hard to work up any sympathy for him as a person, though. The HOF voting has its own fairly subjective standards, and a "baseball criminal," I don't know what else to call him, won't get in. He's the equivalent of a traitor to the game.

That, my friend, is perhaps the best analogy I have thus far read about Mr. Rose.

Just as treason is the sole crime defined in the U.S. Constitution (with the penalty of death explained along with it), so is what Rose did per Rule 21d.

Interesting.

I don't mind seeing Rose the player inducted, but not until Rose the person is dead. And I feel a bit creepy for saying that, but hearing the way he attacked Giammati, along with what he's said about Vincent and Dowd over the years, makes me believe that even more.

I wrote a column about the Pete Rose "admission."

Ugh. He claims not to have used inside information to place his bets, but I don't believe him. There are lots of other events he could bet on, so why bet on baseball, unless he thought he had an edge? One thing that irritates me is this suggestion that as long as he didn't bet against the Reds, it's ok. Even if he betting on his team to win, as a manager, that may influence the game. For example, might he burn his bullpen to ensure victory on the day he bet on them, leaving them vulnerable the following day? In addition, he was exposing himself to blackmail and running up debts to people who might ask for paybacks on the field.

Peter Gammons rethinks his original decision to vote for Rose

Or....Hyperbole much? Rose is a silly ex-ballplayer, not the freakin' Rosenbergs.

I'm already sick of the media coverage of this utter non-story. Anyone who's followed this story knows he bet on games, that he lied about it and so on. He publishes a book and goes on TV and suddenly it's worthy of Page 1 of the Los Angeles Times and other allegedly respectable news outlets?

Rose now has issued a statement saying he never intended the book's timing to coincide with the Hall of Fame announcement (yeah, right), and furthermore:

Gosh, I'm just crying now. Let's get him reinstated, for the good of the game!!

I think you need to get laid, Jim. You're just wayyyyyy too uptight.

I think the original poster's calling it treason was because Rose's actions were considered so serious, the most serious, that they're the only such wrongdoings specifically mentioned like that in rule 21d. I don't know what else is in that MLB operating document. Perhaps Ump can comment on that if he wishes.

Oh Prunella!!! I just adore the disingenuousness of Rose's apology to Molitor and Eck. He didn't mean for his little psychodrama (accent on the psycho-) to overshadow the hall of Fame announcement. He shows up at Cooperstown each and every Hall of Fame induction weekend and sets up an autograph booth-- where he sells his freakin' autograph!!!!! And for the last few years, the sports media has focused on his presence as much as they focused on the inductees. He's an opportunist--and a sleazy one, at that. To quote Bugs Bunny: "It is to laugh."

~Adam

Yes, Pete Rose, go away! I can't stand this arrogant sonofabitch. Also, maybe his son never got out of the minors because he sucked...not because he wasn't given a chance. The catch is that Pete wanted Junior to be given more than a chance--an open spot on the roster for the Reds. What an idiot. I think that red hair dye has gone to his brain. I hope he NEVER gets his undeserved place in the Hall of Fame. Pete, you knew the rules and broke them -- suffer, you big fat jerk.

Yeah, I love the idea of Rose criticizing Jack McKeon for not giving his son "a fair chance". Yup, when I think about somebody who doesn't know anything about baseball or talent, McKeon's name is the first one that pops to mind.

It never frickin' ends with this guy! Gotta love these excerpts from an article today about him:

Other than the Mike Schmidt comment, does anyone notice a pattern here? Rose blames everybody but himself, and when he even feebly attempts "contrition," he still acts as though someone else was responsible for him even having to be contrite.

Pete: Go away!

OK, I couldn't resist. I watched the TV interview with Rose tonight. He proved one thing: he's a dumb jock. Here was a quote from him that made me laugh out loud, when he was talking about how he hated seeing empty seats at Reds games:

"The seats are for asses, and you have to have an ass in every seat every night."

The guy's a classless mess, and not worth much more thought, and certainly not worth headlines at this point. Impossible to ignore his stats, though. You just kinda wish that a giant of the game wasn't a gnat among men.

[ January 08, 2004, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Rickpw ]

I was looking forward to seeing the interview. (plugged endlessly on ABC all week) ... when we turned it on.... pre-empted by some local program... hello???

so.. someone please tell me what he said. I wanna know.

Dammit, Jim, that's frickin' hilarious! I cracked up when I saw that cartoon. Though I disagree about this whole "the Hall is full of poor characters" argument, I think the cartoon was right on target.

I like that the cartoonist in the top one put cloven hoves (hoofs?) on the loser.

More here.

Charlie Hustle, Once and For Always