Report: Evidence Pete Rose Bet on Games He Played In During the 1986 Season

Almost 30 years after the fact, and a new report surrounding the Pete Rose gambling scandal of the mid 1980’s is starting to come to light. ESPN’s Outside the Lines is claiming that it has acquired “previously undisclosed evidence” that Rose bet on games that he played in during the 1986 season.

The fact that Rose bet on baseball isn’t news. However, evidence that he might have bet on games that he played in during the ’86 campaign is somewhat new information. The Dowd Report, which led to Rose’s life-time ban from the game of baseball, focused on him betting on baseball as a manager during the 1987 season. Though, the report did indicate that he placed bets as a player during the 1985 and 1986 campaigns. Rose, who admitted to betting on baseball in 2004, has always maintained it was solely as a manager.

This investigative piece by Outside the Lines reporters William Weinbaum and T.J. Quinn could be damning for Rose’s attempts to be reinstated by new Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred, who had previously indicated he would be open to listening to Rose’s case.

Per the report:

“New documents obtained by Outside the Lines indicate Rose bet extensively on baseball — and on the Cincinnati Reds — as he racked up the last hits of a record-smashing career in 1986. The documents go beyond the evidence presented in the 1989 Dowd report that led to Rose’s banishment and provide the first written record that Rose bet while he was still on the field.”

The documents used as evidence by Outside the Lines are clear. They are copies of notebooks seized by the federal government from known Rose associate, Michael Bertolini, back in October of 1989. The documents reflect betting records during a five-month span in 1986 that Rose was suiting up and playing for the Reds:

Courtesy of ESPN.com

Upon seeing the evidence, John Dowd had this to say about Rose’s case:

“This does it. This closes the door.”

As noted above, Dowd headed the 1989 investigation that ultimately led to Rose’s banishment from the game. According to the ESPN report, he had attempted to gather this evidence during his initial investigation, but wasn’t able to.

Why does evidence from a 30-year-old case matter in the grand scheme of things? That’s a question many pundits who believe this is a witch-hunt will ask.

All evidence used to ban Rose from the game surrounded him betting on baseball as a manager, not a player. He’s denied betting on the game as a player at every turn. And the commissioner’s decision to keep an open mind when determining whether to reinstate Rose was based on evidence that doesn’t include him betting on baseball as a player.

In reality, and as Dowd indicated, this could close the door on Rose’s reinstatement efforts.

Photo: USA Today Sports