06-23-2015, 10:05 AM
I don't think a notebook allegedly kept by a guy who was committing fraud is compelling evidence. Furthermore, the bets that according to investigators were "clearly" made by Pete Rose have the name "Pete" above them in the notebook. Oh, well that is a different matter. I mean clearly there is only one gambler in America named Pete, so that is compelling evidence. 
So, I don't think the notebook would have made it into evidence in a courtroom, but then the Dowd Report didn't have to go by court standards, it was a kangaroo court. I believe Dowd, Giamatti et al had convicted Rose before their investigation launched. They just really didn't like Pete Rose. And they aren't alone. Most people who have met him say he is an ass. But many of those will go on to add, but he was an amazing baseball player whose accomplishments are undeniable.
I really think there are two keys to this case and, as usual, nobody in the media is talking about either of them. First is the "spirit of the law" regarding the ban on betting on baseball. The rule was instituted out of concerns games were being fixed or would be fixed by gamblers inside/outside the game. Has anyone ever suggested Rose fixed a game? No - so if he bet on every game from his first at bat in Little League to his last game as a major league manager, there is no evidence he was fixing games so the spirit of the rule was not violated even if he was technically in violation all career long. Second, when the rule was written, the psychology of addictions was little understood if at all. We can view gambling today very differently than we did a century or more ago. Rose clearly has a compulsive/addictive personality and while it likely contributed to his success as an athlete (many athletes train obsessively as Rose did, and their success is fueled by this personality trait that others don't have - they will simply put in far more time than a normal person to perfect their skills) it also drove a gambling addiction which he has already paid a price for in terms of financial losses, shame, and public humiliation. On top of all that to try to deny his baseball accomplishments for a problem he literally had no control over seems particularly inhumane to me.
So, I don't think the notebook would have made it into evidence in a courtroom, but then the Dowd Report didn't have to go by court standards, it was a kangaroo court. I believe Dowd, Giamatti et al had convicted Rose before their investigation launched. They just really didn't like Pete Rose. And they aren't alone. Most people who have met him say he is an ass. But many of those will go on to add, but he was an amazing baseball player whose accomplishments are undeniable.
I really think there are two keys to this case and, as usual, nobody in the media is talking about either of them. First is the "spirit of the law" regarding the ban on betting on baseball. The rule was instituted out of concerns games were being fixed or would be fixed by gamblers inside/outside the game. Has anyone ever suggested Rose fixed a game? No - so if he bet on every game from his first at bat in Little League to his last game as a major league manager, there is no evidence he was fixing games so the spirit of the rule was not violated even if he was technically in violation all career long. Second, when the rule was written, the psychology of addictions was little understood if at all. We can view gambling today very differently than we did a century or more ago. Rose clearly has a compulsive/addictive personality and while it likely contributed to his success as an athlete (many athletes train obsessively as Rose did, and their success is fueled by this personality trait that others don't have - they will simply put in far more time than a normal person to perfect their skills) it also drove a gambling addiction which he has already paid a price for in terms of financial losses, shame, and public humiliation. On top of all that to try to deny his baseball accomplishments for a problem he literally had no control over seems particularly inhumane to me.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
