John Corcoran referred me to an article that's in today's New York Post, in which John Dowd claims that if he had been given more time, he would have proved that Pete Rose not only bet on Reds games while their manager. He would also have proved that Rose bet against the Reds.
Dowd reminds me of a middle-ager who was high school sports star and now must revel in his past glories with grandiose claims. "Why, we could have taken the Pittsburgh Steelers back in our day." He had his shot. He completed his investigation, now he should just let it go. Anyway, here was John Corcoran's tip:
Any thoughts re: Dowd's comments in today's NY Post that had Rose not "settled," his investigation would have continued, terminating with some really damaging findings? I'm not sure why this guy has any reason to be sour about this, but it sure seems to me like he's carrying a grudge of some sort.
Here's what I wrote back:
Thanks for the tip on the Dowd article. I hadn't seen it yet. You're right. Dowd does seem bitter. I guess it is the thing that he will be remembered by and it not only was not convincing enough apparently so that the Giamatti-Rose had to say that there was no findings on his gambling on baseball, it has been trampled on for thirteen years, and no will be disregarded as Rose is let back into the fold. I guess that would make one bitter, but he seems an especially weasle-like individual.
His accusations hold no water as far as I can tell. As the Post points out, the report, HIS report, says that there was no finding that Rose bet against the Reds. There's one person who Dowd poses the question to the report. It is Jim Procter, a friend of Rose's runner Paul Jaszen. Here's what the report says:
Procter recalled sitting in Janszen's car one evening in the spring of 1987 when Janszen had a series of phone calls with Pete Rose. Procter recalled the conversation as follows:
...After Janszen finished his conversation with Rose, [Jim] Procter said to Janszen, "You've got to be kidding me ... Pete Rose is betting on baseball." Janszen answered, "Yes ... Can you believe that?" Procter then shook his head, and asked Janszen, "Has he ever bet the Reds?" Janszen responded, "He never bet against them."
Yes, it's hearsay, but this is the quality of the evidence in the Dowd Report and those who live by the sword, etc. Paul Janszen is Dowd's star witness and he is on record having said that Rose never bet against the Reds.
Dowd sites Janszen's and Ron Peters' (one of the bookies) daily records (again shoddy evidence) between April 8 and July 5, and they list only wins on the Reds (if they are to be trusted--Peters intimates that a good chunk of Rose's bets are actually Janszen's).
Dowd interviewed all of the individuals involved and reviewed all the "evidence" and nothing pointed to Rose betting against the Reds. What avenue was he not allowed to pursue?
He claims that he didn't have enough time. Rose met with Ueberroth and Giamatti on 2/21/89. The investigation was announced on 3/20/89. On 8/24/89, the ban agreement was reached. That seems like a good deal of time to me. (Actually, I think the lack of results or rather the quality of the results dictated the time table.)
Dowd claims that Rose bet against the Reds whenever Mario Soto pitched. The investigation covered the 1987 season. Soto pitched 6 times in 1987. He had a 5.12 ERA but was 3-2 with a no-decision. So at best there were three games that Rose could have lost with Soto pitching. Is that enough to have "sent a message through the gambling community that the Reds can't win" on those days as he claims?
I am left wondering who is the biggest scumbag in the whole affair: Rose, Giamatti, Dowd? At least Ueberroth was smart enough not to get involved while he was in office and he was the man who promoted collusion on free-agent salaries among the owners!