Come completely clean, Pete

If Rose is serious about apologizing, he must include specifics

After 13 years of headfirst lies about whether he bet on baseball, Pete Rose is now considering a public apology. It will have to be some apology. If Rose sincerely wants to acknowledge his crimes against baseball, the magnitude of his act of contrition will make Trent Lott's recent marathon of mea culpas look minuscule by comparison.

What will Rose admit? Will he divulge that he bet a minimum of $2,000 -- and as much as $5,000 -- on 388 baseball games during the first half of the 1987 season while he was managing the Reds? Will he acknowledge that 51 of those bets were on the Reds?

The remarkable work of John Dowd, who investigated Rose's gambling for Major League Baseball, documents Rose's manic betting habits beyond any doubt. Dowd's impressive array of evidence includes Rose's own handwritten notes, logs kept by a bookie and a member of his entourage, and tape-recorded conversations with bookies and Rose's messenger boys. In addition to that, Dowd uncovered telephone records from locker rooms, dugouts, hotels and Rose's various homes that show Rose's frenzied betting each day just before the games began. The calls to place the bets were followed by dozens of follow-ups to sports lines to check scores of other games.

On one occasion, Ron Peters, a golf pro and one of the Hit King's bookmakers, picked up his ringing telephone as he watched his TV. As TV cameras showed Rose, in uniform, speaking on the phone in the Reds dugout, Peters listened to Rose on his phone placing the day's bets. Phone records confirmed both ends of the call.

The voluminous evidence Dowd gathered shows each of Rose's 388 bets in April, May, June and early July of 1987. The information varies from week to week as Rose disputed his losses and changed bookmakers, but there is no doubt the bets were made.

Between April 8 and May 12, for example, Rose placed 27 bets on the Reds. He did not do well. He won a total of $31,200 and lost a total of $35,400. All in all, he lost $4,200 betting on the team he managed.

Taking into account the entire half-season of bets, Rose did not do badly. He lost money in April ($20,200), and even more ($29,800) in May, but he rallied in June and made a profit of $50,000 that month.

In addition to his baseball bets, Rose bet on basketball and hockey until the seasons ended for those sports. Dowd limited his investigation to bets on baseball, and did not review the evidence of Rose's additional gambling other than to note disputes in 1987 and 1989 over Pick Six wins at racetracks. In both cases, the disputes centered on Rose's ownership of the winning tickets. Each time, Rose, who admitted to tax fraud and eventually went to jail, denied that he had shared in the winnings even though several witnesses said he had walked away with most of the money.

When FBI agents paid a visit to the man who served as go-between for Rose and his bookie, Rose's betting arrangements fell apart. Did he put together another arrangement for the second half of the season? It is hard to imagine that he suddenly and completely stopped. Dowd did not inquire because he had powerful evidence of hundreds of violations of baseball's ban on gambling, more than enough to ban Rose from the game for life.

Did Rose ever bet against the Reds? With baseball's absolute ban on betting, it was not crucial for Dowd to determine this one way or another. But wagering against the team he managed would have put Rose into a world where the word "fix" suddenly comes into play. Dowd has said over the years that he believes Rose did bet against the Reds, but the evidence has not been forthcoming.

When you look at what Dowd did produce, you see quickly why Rose surrendered and agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989. What you don't see is how he ever expected anyone to believe him as he lied about his bets.

Can he be serious about an apology? If he is, he should tell us whether he bet against the Reds. If he did bet against the Reds, the apology should include a list of specific games to allow a review of his managerial moves against his financial commitment on the game.

Maybe the lifetime ban is not such a bad idea.

Sports Illustrated legal analyst Lester Munson regularly holds court on sports law and business matters on CNNSI.com.

 

Related information

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video