By denying Pete Rose’s effort to escape baseball’s purgatory and be returned to baseball’s good graces, Commissioner Rob Manfred has given the disgraced Hit King plenty of time to look up the word reconfigure and study its meaning. In this column, I may be adding to Rose’s agony by explaining, perhaps for the first time, where and why the word came to prominence in Rose’s tarnished life.
One day after this column reported that Manfred would not reinstate Rose from the permanently ineligible list, Major League Baseball announced Monday that Manfred had rejected Rose’s appeal for reinstatement from his lifetime banishment. Pete, meet Shoeless Joe Jackson.
In his three-page decision, Manfred disclosed that in a meeting with Rose Sept. 24, the all-time hits leader remarkably disclosed that he has continued to bet on baseball, though legally, he pointed out, presumably because he has placed his bets in Las Vegas, where he lives and where betting on sporting events is legal. Manfred was not impressed.
In his decision the commissioner wrote:
“In short, Mr. Rose has not presented credible evidence of a reconfigured life either by an honest acceptance by him of his wrongdoing, so clearly established by the Dowd Report, or by a rigorous, self-aware and sustained program of avoidance by him of all the circumstances that led to his permanent ineligibility in 1989. Absent such credible evidence, allowing him to work in the game presents an unacceptable risk of a future violation by him of Rule 21, and thus to the integrity of our sport. I, therefore, must reject Mr. Rose’s application for reinstatement.”
It was his violation of Major League Rule 21 that got Rose in trouble in 1989. The rule, posted on a large poster-type sign in every clubhouse tells players, managers and coaches that betting on baseball is prohibited and if you do it, you will be banned from baseball and placed on the permanently ineligible list.
That’s where Rose has been since Aug. 23, 1989, having agreed to the penalty that day with Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, who told him if he ever wanted to get off the list, he would have to reconfigure his life. Rose, not the most intelligent person I have ever met, decided if he bet on baseball legally instead of illegally he would be reconfiguring his life.
In his decision, Manfred cited a Feb. 26 letter from Rose’s lawyers advising:
“me of Mr. Rose’s request for reinstatement and removal from the permanently ineligible list. Mr. Rose’s attorneys stated that Mr. Rose had accepted responsibility for his mistakes and their consequences, and that Mr. Rose was sorry for betting on the game of Baseball. Mr. Rose’s attorneys further asserted that, as directed by Commissioner Giamatti, Mr. Rose had ‘reconfigured’ his life. Mr. Rose wrote again to me, through counsel, on April 1, 2015, requesting a meeting in order that he be given the opportunity to show me ‘the extent to which he has met and surpassed Commissioner Giamatti’s charge that he reconfigure his life.”
It’s too bad Giamatti isn’t alive to offer his opinion of Rose’s definition of reconfigure. But I tried the next best thing. I called Fay Vincent, the former commissioner, who was Giamatti’s deputy commissioner during the Rose episode.
“The word ‘reconfigure’ was my word,” Vincent recalled. “Bart said what do we do if he comes forward and does the right thing? I said I think we have to tell him he has to reconfigure his life. This is about baseball, not about Pete Rose.”
Has Vincent seen a Rose reconfiguration?
“Sitting in a casino betting on baseball is hardly reconfiguring,” Vincent said.
The New York Times has repeatedly reported that Vincent was the first commissioner to receive a reinstatement request from Rose, but Vincent said that’s wrong.
In its on-line report by Michael Schmidt on Manfred’s decision, the Times said, “He first applied for reinstatement in 1992, just three years after being barred, but Fay Vincent, who was then baseball’s commissioner, did not act on the request. In 1997, Mr. Rose tried again, with the application this time going to Mr. Selig, Mr. Vincent’s successor. But Mr. Selig was not any more inclined to allow Mr. Rose back into baseball than Mr. Vincent was.”
Asked about that report, Vincent said, “He never applied to me. It’s been written and said that Rose applied. If that were so, there would be a record and there is no record. It’s just not true.”
For 15 years, everything Rose said about his gambling wasn’t true. He lied for the first time Feb. 20, 1989, when he met in New York with outgoing Commissioner Peter Ueberroth and incoming Commissioner Giamatti. He lied when he told them he hadn’t bet on baseball games.
He lied publicly for the first time the next day in Plant City, Fla., when I interviewed him at the Cincinnati Reds’ spring training camp. He lied when he denied that the commissioners had summoned him to ask about gambling.
”That’s not the reason,” the manager said, kneeling on the grass in foul territory on one of the Reds’ practice fields. Rose declined to offer an alternative reason, saying only that Ueberroth had sought advice from him.
He continued to lie publicly and privately for the next 15 years, until he published his autobiography, finally admitting the truth for – what else? – money.
“This is about money, making him rich,” Vincent said. “His principal reason for coming back was money.”
Some people – and Rose might have been one of them – speculated that if Giamatti hadn’t died a few weeks after the Rose decision, he might have reinstated Rose. Vincent, though, said that would not have happened unless Rose stepped up quickly and admitted all. Even then, he guessed, it could have taken three or four years.
If Giamatti were here today, Vincent suggested, he would say Rose needed to think of “ways to serve baseball without being reinstated” but added, “He’s 25 years late. He’s missed the opportunity to do that.”
Vincent also noted that Manfred said Rose initially denied in his meeting with Manfred that he still bets on baseball.
“A guy who wants to come back lies to the commissioner?” the former commissioner remarked.
In the second of two footnotes in his written opinion, Manfred wrote:
“Even more troubling, in our interview, Rose initially denied betting on Baseball currently and only later in the interview did he ‘clarify’ his response to admit such betting.”
That footnote followed this paragraph:
“Most important, whatever else a “reconfigured life” may include, in this case, it must begin with a complete rejection of the practices and habits that comprised his violations of Rule 21. During our meeting, Mr. Rose told me that he has continued to bet on horse racing and on professional sports, including Baseball.”
As expected, Manfred did toss Rose a bone, telling him he may participate in “ceremonial activities that present no threat to the integrity of the game.”
Manfred, however, wrote that he has nothing to do with Rose’s eligibility for the Hall of Fame, which seems to be the target of Rose’s many fans. The Hall of Fame is a private enterprise with no corporate connection to Major League Baseball.
In 1991, when Rose became eligible for the baseball writers ballot, the Hall’s board of directors eliminated from eligibility anyone on the permanently ineligible list, an act clearly targeting Rose. Now that Manfred has further buried Rose on that list, it’s extremely unlikely that the Hall will reverse course.
Rose’s lawyers, Ray Genco and Mark Rosenbaum, issued a statement of their own statement, and it had such a soft tone that it made me think they may renew their effort in two or three years, or if Manfred serves only one term (five years) and baseball gets a new commissioner.
Saying – not surprisingly – Manfred’s ruling disappointed them, the lawyers stated:
“While we may have failed at our task of presenting all of the facts to the commissioner demonstrating how Pete has grown and changed over the past three decades, Pete has meaningfully reconfigured his life according to the standard laid out by Commissioner Giamatti.
“Pete’s fall from grace is without parallel but he recognizes that it was also of his own making.
“As such, Pete seeks to be judged not just by the mistakes of his past, but also by the work he has done over the last three decades to take responsibility for his actions. He is constantly working to remain disciplined, compassionate and grateful.
“Pete highly regards the institution of the game and will continue to do all that he can to honor its greatness and remain the most enthusiastic fan.”
The only question I have is about the “last three decades” comment. What work did Rose do in the first decade and a half of that period other than lie?