Rose re­port­edly bet as a player

Doc­u­ments show bet­ting habits

Los Angeles Times - - SPORTS - By Alex Shultz

In the latest chap­ter of a nearly three- decade saga, ESPN’s “Out­side the Lines” re­ported Mon­day that Pete Rose bet on Cincinnati Reds games while he was still a player for the team, di­rectly con­tra­dict­ing pre­vi­ous state­ments Rose has made that he only placed bets as a man­ager.

Doc­u­ments leaked in the re­port show that “on 21 of the days it’s clear [ Rose] bet on base­ball, he gam­bled on the Reds, in­clud­ing on games in which he played.”

The doc­u­ments also pro­vide a win­dow into Rose’s gam­bling habits. Rose’s bets usu­ally to­taled $ 2,000 per game and were placed mostly on base­ball. One ex­cep­tion was the $ 5,500 bet he placed on the Bos­ton Celtics, which he lost.

Fay Vin­cent, who took over as MLB com­mis­sioner af­ter the death of A. Bartlett Gia­matti, has been a vo­cal pro­po­nent of main­tain­ing the life­time ban Ma­jor League Base­ball an­nounced in 1989 af­ter the re­lease of in­ves­ti­ga­tor John Dowd’s find­ings.

“The ev­i­dence is over­whelm­ing,” Vin­cent said. “We’re still try­ing to pin down how many times he bet on the Reds, how many times he bet when he was with the Phillies — the an­swer is it’s all in the Dowd Re­port. There’s noth­ing new. Rose has lied over and over.”

Vin­cent’s as­ser­tion matches the views of two long­time Cincinnati En­quirer jour­nal­ists — John Erardi and Paul Daugh­erty. Daugh­erty says it’s com­mon knowl­edge in gam­bling cir­cles and among those in­volved in the Dowd in­ves­ti­ga­tion that Rose bet on Reds games as a player.

“I don’t think it’s shock­ing,” Erardi added. “John Dowd said this in 1989 un­der oath in Hamil­ton County Court here in Cincinnati.”

The ESPN re­port pro­vided ir­refutable writ­ten proof of what many had sus­pected. In re­sponse, Rose is­sued a state­ment to “Out­side the Lines” in which he stated, in part: “I’m ea­ger to sit down with [ MLB Com­mis­sioner Rob] Man­fred to ad­dress my en­tire history — the good and the bad — and my long per­sonal jour­ney since base­ball. That meet­ing likely will come some­time af­ter the All- Star break.”

The All- Star break presents an im­me­di­ate dilemma for Rose and the Reds, be­cause the game is be­ing held in Cincinnati on July 14. Rose was ex­pected to be rec­og­nized in some ca­pac­ity, but that’s now in limbo.

“It was al­ways go­ing to be about Pete Rose be­cause he’s our na­tive son and he’s our great­est player,” Erardi said. “This changes the story a lit­tle bit, be­cause it’s just one more piece of ev­i­dence that buries him.”

The tim­ing of the leaked doc­u­ments — which are sealed in New York — isn’t lost on Daugh­erty. Though he’s care­ful to point out that he has no proof, he wouldn’t be sur­prised if higher- ups in MLB were be­hind the story com­ing out now, shortly be­fore the All- Star break and Rose’s meet­ing with the com­mis­sioner.

“This is just my per­sonal opin­ion: I re­ally be­lieve that base­ball had some­thing to do with this,” Daugh­erty said. “I don’t think there’s any way Man­fred re­in­states him now. I didn’t think that there was much of a chance that he re­in­stated him be­fore. But this makes it easy for him and it also makes it a de­ci­sion that’s palat­able to ev­ery­body.”

Rose’s sav­ing grace — even as he stares down another damn­ing piece of ev­i­dence — is that it’s never been proved he bet against the Reds.

“This isn’t the dag­ger in the heart,” Erardi said. “The dag­ger in the heart would be that he bet against his team. If he did that, then ev­ery­thing would be over. I don’t think his case is com­pletely dead un­til that hap­pens.”

John Swart As­so­ci­ated Press

PETE ROSE, shown dur­ing his time as man­ager of the Cincinnati Reds, re­port­edly bet on the team while he was a player. Rose was banned by MLB in 1989.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.