By Sam Bush
Major league baseball commissioner Rob Manfred today denied Pete Rose’s appeal for restoration into the MLB world, including consideration for the Hall of Fame.
But, it is astonishing that Rose thought he ever had a chance after Rose’s lawyers reported that on Sept. 24 Rose met in New York with Manfred, and admitted he was still betting on baseball!
“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 1980,” Manfred wrote today.
“Absent such credible evidence, allowing him to work in the game presents an unacceptable risk of a future violation by him of Rule 21 (misconduct, gambling), and thus to the integrity of our sport. I therefore, must reject Mr. Rose’s application fore reinstatement.
“He told me that currently he bets recreationally and legally on horses and sports, including baseball,” Manfred wrote.
Manfred concluded that the Dowd Report, which showed evidence of Rose’s gambling as a player and manager for the Cincinnati Reds, was accurate. Since 2004, Rose has admitted to betting on the Reds, but only while he was managing the team in 1987.
“It is not clear to me that Mr. Rose has a grasp of the scope of his violations of Rule 21,” Manfred wrote. “He claims not to remember significant misconduct detailed in the Dowd Report and corroborated by Michael Bertolini’s betting notebook (in a June 23, 2015 ESPN.com report). While Rose claims that he only bet on baseball in 1987, the Dowd Report concluded that he also bet on baseball in 1985 and 1986. Based on the review of the Bertolini Notebook (which shows that Mr. Rose bet on baseball during the 1986 season), I am convinced that the findings set forth in the Dowd Report are credible.
“Mr. Rose’s public and private comments, including his initial admission in 2004, provide me with little confidence that he has a mature understanding of his wrongful conduct, that he has accepted full responsibility for it, or that he understands the damage he has caused. As I understand it, Mr. Rose has never seriously sought treatment for either of the two medical conditions described so prominently in his 2004 book … I am also not convinced that he has avoided the type of conduct and associations that originally led to his placement on the permanently ineligible list.”