Pete Rose: "Oh wait - I lied"

Written by Eric Olsen
Published January 05, 2004
page 1 | 2

In "My Prison Without Bars," to be released Thursday, Rose writes that he regrets lying for all those years and says, "I wish I could take it all back."

"I've consistently heard the statement: 'If Pete Rose came clean, all would be forgiven.' Well, I've done what you've asked. The rest is up to the commissioner and the big umpire in the sky."

....Rose wrote that if he "had been an alcoholic or a drug addict, baseball would have suspended me for six weeks and paid for my rehabilitation."

"I should have had the opportunity to get help, but baseball had no fancy rehab for gamblers like they do for drug addicts," Rose wrote. "If I had admitted my guilt, it would have been the same as putting my head on the chopping block - lifetime ban. Death penalty. I spent my entire life on the baseball fields of America, and I was not going to give up my profession without first seeing some hard evidence. ... Right or wrong, the punishment didn't fit the crime - so I denied the crime." [AP] One small problem, asshole, drug users and alcoholics don't call the very integrity of the fabric of the game into question. And the prick is still trying to justify his behavior - "the punishment didn't fit the crime." Really? And who are you to decide that?

I don't have a particular problem with Rose being allowed into the Hall of Fame - AS A PLAYER ONLY - but he should never be allowed to work for the game in an official capacity again.

I hate Pete Rose.

page 1 | 2
Career media professional Eric Olsen is honored to be the founder and publisher of Blogcritics.org, which, quite frankly, rules - as do his wife and four children.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Pete Rose: "Oh wait - I lied"
Published: January 05, 2004
Type:
Section: Sports
Filed Under: Books: Sports, Books: News, Books: Biography
Writer: Eric Olsen
Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
Eric Olsen's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Eric Olsen
Books: Sports
Books: News
Books: Biography
All Sports Articles
Eric Olsen's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — January 5, 2004 @ 12:17PM — Mark Saleski [URL]

i hate the haircut.

#2 — January 5, 2004 @ 12:46PM — Eric Olsen

a worthy object of derision

#3 — January 5, 2004 @ 12:58PM — TDavid [URL]

Wow, Eric, such emotion over this issue? Is this genuine anger, are you venting, and/or do you really think that Pete's admission is totally insincere?

For Pete Rose, this might be the closest thing we'll get to a sincere admission of guilt in this whole gambling mess.

I don't "hate" Pete Rose. I save that emotion for murderers, pedophiles and the like, but I will acknowledge that it is way past time that Rose admitted he bet on baseball.

During that mock trial this past year (I wrote about it here), only one mock juror thought he didn't bet on baseball and I've read studies suggesting somewhere in the neighborhood of 90%+ polled believed he gambled on baseball, so this admission is hardly any type of revelation.

Also, I can't give Pete credit for directly calling into question the integrity of the game. Why? Because the fact that for 14 years (and counting) baseball has kept him out despite his superior hit stats and that alone should have been a strong deterrent to others who might even think about gambling on the game.

This admission really doesn't change that much except appease the many of fans like myself who have been waiting for him to come clean.

My problem is the timing of this admission.

Rose still hasn't been let into the Hall and even if Sehlig makes him elligible, the time is running short for the reporters to vote, hence the urgency IMO of Rose to make this long past due admission (which adds to the phoniness in it and I believe at least some of Eric's disgust).

If this goes to veteran's committee to vote I'm not so sure that they'll let him in, even with Hank Aaron and Joe Morgan in Pete's corner. He belongs in the Hall, but I would agree with Eric that he shouldn't ever be allowed to manage again.

So I think my emotion for Pete Rose is more about pity and disgust than hate. He should have come clean during the Jim Gray interview at the All Star Game after the fans showed him huge, loving support for the style of his play.

Eric, I totally don't get you not liking his aggressive style of play. He wasn't showboating like some of these overpaid atheletes do. He ran out routine grounders -- which pretty much nobody does anymore. He played the game the way it was meant to be played. I'd have wiped out Ray Fosse too if he was blocking the plate because that's the way the game is played.

As for the All Star Game? It has become a farce and I much preferred the way it was played in the Pete Rose days than the way it is played today -- like a freaking exhibition that doesn't matter to anybody. 25 years ago guys would have been dealt with on the field for refusing to go to the All Star Game. Some of these guys are total pussies.

Yeah, I know it is an exhibition, but with the economy the way it is, the political climate, the last thing people want to relax by doing is watching a bunch of millionaires hamming it up at an exhibition.

#4 — January 5, 2004 @ 13:18PM — Eric Olsen

TD, "hate" in this case is a stylized term since I don't even know the guy, and as far as I know he hasn't killed anyone. Part of my distaste is that he was always on the "other" team - I was a Dodgers fan and he was a Red, an Expo, a Philly.

The All Star thing was a violation of protocol even then: there was a general agreement that you would play the game hard, but not go so far as to pull anything that would unduly place anyone in harm's way, which his bush play obviously and unnecessarily did. And it was just out of vanity, his usual selfish "look at me, I'm going all out as usual because I'm fucking Charlie Hustle and your career means nothing to me because I am bigger and more important than the game itself because I am an egomaniacal shithead who played, oh, maybe 10 years too long in order to go after the career hits record," which did no one any good but himself. And a slow singles hitter who finishes his career at .301 was in serious decline for a hell of a long time. I hate that asshole.

#5 — January 5, 2004 @ 13:22PM — Johno [URL]

Remind me never to get on Eric's bad side.

#6 — January 5, 2004 @ 13:26PM — BJ [URL]

He wasn't that great either - sure he had a lot of hits, but he had an astronomical number of at bats. Per at bat, he was better than average, but nowhere near the game's true greats.

FWIW, I've always been in the camp that says he should be in the Hall of Fame but not allowed to work in the game. That just seems like the obvious solution to me.

#7 — January 5, 2004 @ 13:31PM — Eric Olsen

I've been too nice for too long - back to my usual spiteful self.

#8 — January 5, 2004 @ 13:36PM — TDavid [URL]

Well, players who play too long can go to a lot of players. How about Ricky Henderson, Michael Jordan, Emmet Smith (who got booed by a few people at the last Seahawks home game I was at), Nolan Ryan, Cal Ripken and the list goes on and on ... yes?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the All Star Game. Playing fundamental baseball is not "bush", sorry, it is the way the game is played.

I don't care if it is the All Star Game, an exhibition, you don't block the plate and expect the guy coming home to stop and serve you pie.

Back then the All Star Game meant something -- it was a badge of honor thing for each league, now it's just "something for the fans". Do you not agree that this game isn't taken seriously any more?

As a fan, I don't want to see a bunch of millionaire's playing around and having slap ass, I want to see a game that means something.

Selig didn't even care enough about the All Star Game enough to have one of the recent contests even have an outcome. That tie was total BS. They could have mixed in a home run derby to finish it, had some pitching coaches throwing, whatever.

There is too much fear about injury in the All Star Game. What kind of prima donna's are these guys? Let's see if i can do 50% of my job because the conference is held in Vegas and not in my office. Gimme a break.

Every catcher knows if he blocks the plate, he better be ready to handle the collision. It's not like Pete slid home, then went back and hit Fosse with a bat or something.

Pete's an asshole, yes. Pete's a liar, yes. Pete's a gambler, yes. Does him being a gambler as a manager change the way he played on the field? That isn't even a question to me.

I can get not liking a player like Pete because he was definitely an aggresive overbearing player, so I do see your distinction and use of the word hate, but this article still reads very angry to me about things which don't make a whole lot of sense (not the gambling part, but the spirit of the game).

I liked the way Pete Rose played because few people play that way any more. For me the gambling and his play on the field are two separate issues. I'll go a long ways with the gambling stuff being bad news for the game, but I can't agree that Pete's style of play was ever bush.

#9 — January 5, 2004 @ 13:43PM — TDavid [URL]

BJ - players playing too long, that's interesting. But is that the fault of the player? Or maybe is it the owners and the fans that support these players?

Hey, if they'll keep giving me a paycheck to go out and play a game I love to play, then why hang it up? Dignity, yes, but guys like Pete love the game more than they analyze how their final years will be remembered.

Go check out Babe Ruth's last two years. Most atheletes final years are bad. There aren't many Barry Sanders in the world of sports who go out on top.

Michael Jordan coming back to the Wizards wasn't about money, it was about him wanting to see if he could still make a difference -- which he couldn't.

Pete saw the hits record, sure, but the fans loved him and he filled up seats for his style of play. And he didn't make any money compared to what they make today.

As long as people pay to see records broken -- and they will -- then I don't know how suspect the player is for this, really.

It makes for an interesting discussion.

#10 — January 5, 2004 @ 13:58PM — Eric Olsen

TD, okay we disagree about the All Star game - don't forget they just added the home field advantage thing to give the game more meaning.

The gambling and the style of play are completely separate issues, and I have always said he should get in the Hall as a player. Even though I hate him I can still say he deserves to be counted with the game's great players; but as BJ said, because of the numbers he was overrated as a player as well - he still belongs in the Hall, but he isn't anywhere near the very top echelon.

And frankly, TD, I am a snob: I always prefer extraordinary talent over the "overachieving slob who doesn't have the talent but achieves on guts" crap, and especially if that overachiever is a swaggering, egomaniacal shit ranch. That turd had/has zero style and he hit like a girl - that's what his HOF plaque should read: "Pete Rose, more hits than anyone in MLB history, but he hit like a girl."

#11 — January 5, 2004 @ 14:20PM — Craig Lyndall [URL]

Wade Boggs kissing home plate in a Devil Rays uniform makes me want to puke. He stayed too long.

Cal Ripken might be THE most overrated baseball player of all time now. I despise Cal Ripken not because of him or anything I know about him, but because of the undue amount of attention and acclaim he got for a record that over-inflated his value to the game. His home run in the allstar game made me want to kill, and his "farewell tour" made me want to drown puppies.

#12 — January 5, 2004 @ 14:23PM — Johno [URL]

Eric, I've been trying to stay out of this because I actually agree with your "egotistical shit-ranch" thesis despite the fact that Charlie Hustle was one of my childhood heroes.

But you've gone off the rails in two places. First: talent over guts? Are you mad? Sure, it's a beautiful thing to see Omar Vizquel make a bare-hand-no-look grab-and-toss to second. I grant you that. But what about the pluggers? John Kruk was a fine ballplayer. Joe Randa is still a fine ballplayer. What about the team of no-names that took the Red Sox (or, hell, the Marlins) to the playoffs this year? Who the hell is Kevin Millar? Talent may be pretty, but guts is all that most of us have, and I relate to guts better.

In guitar terms, you've put Yngwie Malmsteen over Neil Young. And that's just wrong.

Second question: what the hell is wrong with hitting like a girl? It's still a hit, the ball is in play and men run the bases, right? So what if it's not a home run? To paraphrase Crash Davis, home runs are fascist. Rose may have hung around like a bad case of the clap, and he may be a boor, cheat, and cad, but he came by that hit record just like everyone else did. You don't get credit for the ones that they catch. So did Tony Gwynn hit like a girl? George Brett? (full disclosure: I hit like a girl.)

#13 — January 5, 2004 @ 14:37PM — Craig Lyndall [URL]

The no-names for the Red Sox are what made me dislike that team so much. Their average joe motto of "Cowboy Up" and the one from a few years prior being the "dirt dogs" really rubbed me the wrong way and made me root against them. Maybe it is the right age to be jaded by the "good guy" story, but I don't like it.

#14 — January 5, 2004 @ 14:56PM — Eric Olsen

Johno, Attitude is the key: get all you can out of your talent but don't be a dick about it. Don't be selfish, don't act like you're bigger than the game. Realize what an opportunity you've been afforded and know that the game gives you your forum and be thankful for it.

Rose was a big, fat, slow slap hitter who barely hit above .300 lifetime - a grim combination. Certainly George Brett with 300+ lifetime home runs was no slap hitter, Gwynn hit .338 lifetime - THAT'S a singles hitter. He also had a similar number of home runs as Rose (135-160) with 5000 fewer at bats.

I'm not trying to dismiss Rose as a player, just trying to give some perspective.

#15 — January 5, 2004 @ 17:53PM — TDavid [URL]

I agree with the "hit is a hit" thing. How old they were, whether it was a fluke drop in, all that's irrelevant in the Hall of Fame.

Was it a solid double like Edgar Martinez hits (but often makes it a single because he can't run any more)? If details were important than how many steals of home should they take away from Ty Cobb for his intentional spike sharpenings?

What a slippery slope that would be for the record books.

I'll take hard work and coming through in the clutch with effort over raw talent any day of the week, but that's what I look for from these atheletes to root for. Guys like Brett Favre who will be out there pounding it the day after his Dad died.

I think that's old school. Perhaps others look up to people like Pay-Rod, who can't give away money to get out of his contract in Texas because they are talented. How he was voted Most Valuable Player when his team wasn't even in contention for the playoffs is beyond me.

These big mega superstars with the ridiculous contracts ($20 million a year to play a game?!) like Manny Ramirez don't do much in a team sport. Pete Rose was more of a team leader type simply by the way he played the game. Guys like Ramirez don't even respect the game.

But there is more to the game than just talent and Pete Rose proved that by being a guy who was a so-so athelete by working his butt off. He represents the blue collar ideal and I think that is very much why people love him so much, despite his gambling addiction.

Imagine if Stephen King had stopped writing when people told him he had no talent? What surprises me is the literary critics who don't make more in a lifetime than he makes in a year still telling him he has no talent.

Pete told a very unconvincing lie to the world and now most people are having the reaction of: "yup, knew it all along." The healing process for Rose isn't really going to start until he truly, honestly, legitimately feels sorry for what he has done. I don't think he does yet, and the coming out of this news on the heel of an autobiography makes the situation only more suspect. I'm going to be snagging that book and reading it cover to cover as soon as it comes out. Maybe through "his words" I'll get a deeper sense of remorse than I currently feel.

#16 — January 5, 2004 @ 18:49PM — Natalie Davis [URL]

"FWIW, I've always been in the camp that says he should be in the Hall of Fame but not allowed to work in the game. That just seems like the obvious solution to me."

Ditto.

I'm a pacifist and a baseball fanatic. If you're going to block the plate, you better expect to be hit. I am not a huge Pete Rose fan (his egomania and lying are part of my dislike for Rose the human), but AS A PLAYER, he deserves to be in the Hall.

#17 — January 14, 2004 @ 20:38PM — colphil

One thing I never hear brought up is the fact that when this was all going down, there was a bookie who claimed that Rose bet against his team. Then he came into a pile of money and shut up. Come on, Rose bet against his team and besides all this, the man is a bully. He loved hurting other players. There's a saying for people like Rose, "assholes are born that way! They rarely change." Fuck Pete Rose!!

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/11456)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments