It is virtually certain that Commissioner Rob Manfred will reject Pete Rose’s request for reinstatement when he announces his decision in the next week to 10 days. “He will not reinstate him,” a lawyer familiar with the case said last week.
With that unnecessarily long-term matter settled, one issue stemming from it remains: Why couldn’t Bud Selig do in 18 years what Manfred has done in nine months? Why did Selig ignore and abandon his responsibility as commissioner of Major League Baseball and dump the matter in Manfred’s lap? What kind of leadership did Selig demonstrate by saying, “Here, Rob, you take care of this. I can’t. I’m out the door.” Or did Selig tell Manfred, “I made him wait 18 years. You can make him wait a few more.”
Do not mistake my point here. In no way am I feeling sorry for Rose because he has had to wait so long for an answer to his reinstatement request. He made baseball and its fans wait for 15 years before he admitted that John Dowd, in his remarkably comprehensive report, nailed him for violating Major League Rule 21. He did bet on baseball games.
Of course, he has continued to lie about certain aspects of his betting, but I’ll get to that later.
My point here is Selig, as commissioner, had a responsibility to make a decision and he didn’t make it, although a club owner I spoke with Friday said, “Not acting on it is a no, isn’t it?”
In reality, probably so, but by not acting on it, Selig afforded Rose the opportunity to file a reinstatement request with Manfred, which he did last March, and give his fans renewed hope that they could once again see their tarnished hero in a baseball uniform.
I tried to find out from Selig why he stuffed Rose’s request into a desk drawer and let it languish there, but he declined to talk about it.
“Bud has no interest in talking about Pete Rose,” said his spokesman, Richard Levin, former head of MLB’s public relations. “He doesn’t believe it is appropriate to get involved now that it is up to Rob.”
Manfred, who succeeded Selig last Jan. 25, met with Rose and his lawyers in late September and said in November he would render a decision by the end of the year. With the end of the year rapidly approaching, anticipation of Manfred’s decision is growing.
In preparing for his decision, Manfred assigned John McHale, a special assistant in his office, to review the Dowd investigation. Speaking briefly about his assignment, McHale said he couldn’t say much. “I can say that I reviewed some work for the commissioner on this issue,” he said.
Was he reviewing the Dowd investigation or redoing it? “Principally reviewing,” he said. “I’ve been in contact with people who were involved with it.”
Did that include bookies? Yes, he said.
Did McHale contact them? “Some contacted the commissioner’s office,” he said, “and they were told I was doing the review.”
What did McHale conclude from his review of the Dowd report? “It has withstood the test of time,” he said.
McHale’s review differed from a 2003 redo of the investigation conducted by the law firm Foley & Lardner at the direction of Selig and Robert DuPuy, Selig’s chief operating officer and a partner in the law firm.
A person familiar with the second investigation said it was never completed because the lawyer, Martin Weinstein, found Dowd’s investigation had been conducted so well, fairly and accurately that nothing more needed to be done.
“They said the investigation was totally fair and impartial and it was one of the best investigations they ever reviewed,” this person said. “They came back with very, very high marks.”
The probe redo, it was believed at the time, was undertaken because Selig and DuPuy were angry with Dowd for doing television interviews about the report. They accused him of violating attorney-client privilege, although the report had been made public in a Rose lawsuit.
MLB went so far as to file a complaint against Dowd with the District of Columbia bar association, which promptly dismissed the complaint.
At this stage of the saga, unlike the atmosphere of the earlier days of the Rose case, there appears to be no suggestion that Rose didn’t do it, that the Dowd report was flawed, that it relied on bookies and convicted felons and was therefore highly questionable.
Rose had lots of defenders, many of whom looked foolish to anyone who read Dowd’s report. The problem was Rose’s supporters didn’t take the time or the trouble to read it. The case it made against Rose was solid.
Rose was very likely one of those who didn’t read the report. Instead he autographed his copy of it and sold it.
When he continued to lie and denied that he placed bets from the manager’s office, he apparently wasn’t aware that Dowd had secured telephone records that showed calls were made from his office at Riverfront Stadium to bookies, and the bookies confirmed Rose had placed bets with them on those calls.
In addition, since admitting that he bet on games, Rose has consistently said he always bet on the Reds to win. Technically he is right, and if he were testifying in court under oath he could not be accused of perjury. But the Dowd report provided evidence that demonstrated how Rose, in effect, did bet against the Reds.
Dowd uncovered a pattern of Rose’s betting in 1987 in which he didn’t bet on Reds’ games when certain pitchers were pitching. That sent a clear signal to the bookies Rose dealt with that the manager didn’t think the Reds could win those games.
One of the pitchers was Bill Gullickson, and Rose didn’t have to tolerate him for the entire season because the Reds traded him to the Yankees Aug. 26 for Dennis Rasmussen.
Rose’s current lawyer, Ray Genco, who was 6 years old when Dowd issues his report, declined to comment until after Manfred’s decision. However, some Rose supporters argue that he should be reinstated because he has reconfigured his life, as then Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti told him he had to when they entered the agreement that banished the career hits leader.
How has Rose reconfigured his life? In the last year or so, his supporters say, he has not attacked MLB and he has not been aggressive.
Manfred just might find that change too little and too late. Yet the commissioner might throw Rose a bone or two dealing with public appearances for the Reds. Rose remains popular in Cincinnati, and his presence could help the Reds. That’s why Manfred allowed Rose to participate in All-Star festivities last July.
WHY ROSE’S REQUEST SHOULD BE REJECTED
If there are any readers who don’t understand why Rose shouldn’t be reinstated, I have asked Fay Vincent, the former commissioner and deputy commissioner under Giamatti, to explain.
I begin with two important contentions. One is that the Rose case is not about Pete Rose but is rather about whether baseball should alter the deterrent against gambling that has been so effective. The second is that any commissioner who alters that deterrent then owns the full risks of any future gambling scandals that might occur. The new commissioner will carefully be mindful of his duties to protect the game
As is often the case, the definition of the issue governs the debate. Rose wishes the debate to play out on the issue of whether he has been punished sufficiently and whether he deserves mercy. His claim is he has been kept out of baseball since 1989 with the loss of substantial income.
Moreover, he argues he has suffered enough for his mistakes and that he now fully understands both the harm he caused to baseball and why his deferred apology is so necessary. He says he is sorry, but even now he has trouble sounding sincere.
Many who pay attention to this recurring debate were not around when Rose signed his fateful agreement with Major League Baseball. I not only negotiated the agreement, but drafted it and was the witness to Giamatti’s signature.
In it Rose agreed to being placed on “the permanently ineligible list.” There is nothing in the agreement about his being reinstated though under the Major League Agreement anyone on the ineligible list may at the end of one year petition the commissioner to be reinstated.
Rose’s petition should be denied without comment. The issue is clear. There has been virtually no gambling within official baseball since the grim Black Sox scandal that arose after the 1919 World Series. One reason Rose has such a challenge is that the deterrent has been so wonderfully effective.
That deterrent defines the only capital crime in baseball. Under Rule 21, anyone who bets on a game in which he has an interest is placed on the “Permanently Ineligible List” as was Rose. The person placed on that list is effectively unable to be any form of participant in official baseball. And in a telling historical fact, no one has ever been reinstated from that list to full rights in baseball.
The message to all in the game is a draconian one: Bet on a game as a player or other participant and you are out of baseball for life.
The ancient adage is that one ought to temper justice with mercy. I see this as a case where justice has been fully served. Bart gave Rose a full opportunity to make a defense, but there was no defense to be made because Rose had been betting on baseball for years, and we had carefully collected overwhelming evidence of his gambling.
In the Agreement Bart signed with Rose, Rose agreed to his punishment “without admitting or denying he bet on Major League Baseball games.” Yet for some 15 or more years after he signed that agreement, Rose violated that provision by aggressively denying he had ever bet on baseball. Finally, when Rose was offered a significant financial incentive to tell the truth in a book, he finally came clean and admitted he bet on games as the Reds manager.
Rose is a man of commerce. He knows that if he were able to work in baseball he would be able to earn some real money. At present, Rose sits in a booth at a Las Vegas casino and gets paid to autograph baseball memorabilia for his fans. If he were ever elected to the Hall of Fame his financial fortunes would surely improve. But things are not that simple.
Manfred cannot put Rose in the HOF and if he acts to reinstate Rose he is admitting he would be willing to have Rose on the field again. I have too much faith in Manfred to believe he wants to endorse Rose as a person who warrants being active again within baseball. He will not want Rose back in the game.
Finally, the Rose case presents the complex question of baseball and so-called Performance Enhancing Drugs. A favorable reinstatement move by Manfred will bring the attention of Congress to question why Baseball is acting to weaken the deterrent to gambling.
Congress will ask whether this Rose move means the users of PEDs are also to be treated to lesser sanctions. If baseball says we no longer feel betting should keep Rose out, how can Congress not worry the users of PEDs are next to have their sanctions reduced. Not much in baseball stands apart from other important concerns.
Our new commissioner should choose his fights carefully. He does not need to do anything about Rose. He should stand firmly against gambling in baseball and behind the effective deterrent. Not much in our world can stand the test of time as well as has the ancient wisdom of Rule 21. Bet on our game and you are gone.
What can be clearer? There is no good reason to change that rule and certainly mercy for Rose is an insufficient reason. Justice works and mercy is often misunderstood.