There are new, ugly accusations about Pete Rose floating around, but rather
than deal with them I’m going to look at how the story has developed.
Rose’s camp initially said they weren’t going to comment on the situation,
but as it grew, they did, and Rose has now given an interview to a
sympathetic ear. Jayson Stark has used Rose’s denials as the basis for an
article on how poor Pete is being denied his rightful place in the hall by
evil Bud Selig, and how the public supports poor Pete in his noble struggle.
This appears to be the denial of record so far, and has been quoted (without
attribution to Stark) in wire-service stories.
In the interview, Rose had attacked his accuser, saying Tommy Gioiosa was
paid to talk to Vanity Fair. The writer, Buzz Bissinger, has denied this.
Rose attacks the reporter through Stark: "Of course, the guy’s going to
say he didn’t pay Gioiosa no money. But he was in Cincinnati, bragging that
they paid him $75,000."
Buzz Bissinger won a Pulitzer Prize in 1987 (along with with two other
reporters) for a series of articles about the court system that directly led
to federal and state investigations. In addition to a career of reportage,
he wrote a great book about Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell’s first term, and
another about football obsession in West Texas.
Pete Rose denies he bet on baseball, despite all the evidence against him.
One of these two has a history of lying to serve himself, and one of them
has an exemplary history of telling the truth.
Stark’s piece is, in fact, so pro-Rose that it actually refers to Rose as
"Hit King" while quoting him:
"I did have a corked bat one time," the Hit King conceded.
"You know who corked them? Jose Cardenal."
I started out trying this defense in grade school, when I’d be accused of
something I did (usually) and I’d say "Nope, wasn’t me. But hey, do you
know who does do that? That guy right there." I’m glad someone’s
getting mileage out of it, because I certainly didn’t, and was forced to
quickly upgrade my arguments.
This is all pretty standard Rose: any set of accusations are
"laughable," "ridiculous," and so forth. They’re not
ever addressed in fact or admission, only in deflection. Rose just welds
them onto the giant cross he bears, frowns, and trudges off to the next
casino appearance.
In defending Rose, his supporters have already said things that are clearly
not true or, at least, willfully ignorant.
Rob Dibble, in a column: "I’ve yet to see any substantial evidence that
Pete bet on baseball."
The evidence in the Dowd report is comprehensive, credible, and persuasive.
If there’s something wrong with that evidence, I’d like to hear about it. I
have to wonder if Dibble, who likes Rose a great deal, is afraid to read the
report and confront the implications. That’s sad.
More Dibble:
"While I was around him, I certainly never saw anything indicating
attempts to alter the outcome of a game. I'm not a betting man, but if I had
money on a game, I'd be doing everything in my power to change the outcome.
I'd send the worst bullpen guys to the field knowing they'd give up a bunch
of runs or I'd constantly be putting together bad line-ups."
That seems true, until you consider Rose bet on his own team to win, which
affects decisions in the other direction–maybe using tired relievers
needlessly one day, sacrificing their performance the next, or putting
together lineups that neglect the need to rest regulars, or get young
players experience they’ll need in the future. This is a dangerous variant
of the old "well, he didn’t bet on his own team to lose" argument,
a poor attempt to put a good spin on a terrible problem, but moreover, it
fails to identify or confront the wide and dangerous implications even
betting on your own team to win carry.
Joe Morgan, in an ESPN.com chat session: "You have to consider the
source. This is a guy who says he never talked before making these
allegations."
That’s not what Gioiosa says and, as detailed by John Donovan on CNNSI.com,
many of these allegations are substantially identical to a statements
Gioiosa made in 1990.
More Joe Morgan: "And the writer who wrote this is not a real
journalist because he’s basing it on one guy. You don’t write things you
can’t check out and prove."
I’d just like everyone to cross-apply my previous comments about Bissinger,
and kick Joe Morgan while he’s down by pointing out that he frequently says
crazy stuff in broadcasts and in print that he doesn’t check out and prove,
or care to check out and prove.
The only reaction I’ve seen so far that’s been vaguely
pro-baseball-integrity has been Ken Rosenthal’s in The Sporting News,
who wrote that he was tired of hearing allegations and denials in the face
of evidence. "Rose is the one who got himself into this mess. And he’s
the only one who can get himself out of it."
This is what we can expect to see in the sports columns, shows, and radio:
"He’s as guilty as ever, this is just heaping it on" vs. "The
source, reporter, and story are bad, and Pete Rose deserves to go into the
Hall." It troubles me that sports coverage has never widely
acknowledged that Rose is guilty, guilty, guilty, because without
acknowledging that he broke the only rule baseball cannot and should not
forgive, we can’t have a reasonable discussion about whether the punishment
was just, or if he’s served his time. I really wish Pete would fess up, if
only to advance the level of discussion. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Derek Zumsteg is an author of Baseball Prospectus. You can contact him by
clicking here.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now