The manager of the Cincinnati Reds when he was banned from baseball for life, Pete Rose is suing lead investigator John Dowd for insinuating that he participated in statutory rape.
As hard as he tries, Pete Rose will always be fighting with somebody. The all-time hit king is suing lawyer John M. Dowd because Rose says that Dowd damaged his name and ruined his endorsements in a July 2015 interview. Dowd was the lead investigator back in 1989 when Rose was banned from baseball for life.
Rose thinks that his name was not damaged beyond repair after his press conference before the 2015 All Star Game where he admitted that he currently clinically gambles. He is completely entitled to his opinion, but he needs to have some common sense.
More from Call to the Pen
- Philadelphia Phillies, ready for a stretch run, bomb St. Louis Cardinals
- Philadelphia Phillies: The 4 players on the franchise’s Mount Rushmore
- Boston Red Sox fans should be upset over Mookie Betts’ comment
- Analyzing the Boston Red Sox trade for Dave Henderson and Spike Owen
- 2023 MLB postseason likely to have a strange look without Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals
Rose was banned from baseball in 1989 for gambling. 26 years later in 2015, he admitted on live TV that he still gambles. Yes, 26 years is a long time. That said, the rule on gambling has not changed, and people still look down on gambling.
Dowd did not hurt Rose, Dowd simply made it known what Rose did was wrong. That in no way is Dowd’s fault.
How all of this started was that July 2015 interview, where Dowd was asked if Rose was a likeable person. “Michael Bertolini told us that he not only ran bets but he ran young girls for Rose down at spring training, ages 12 to 14. Isn’t that lovely? So that’s statutory rape every time you do that.” Dowd responded.
Looking at the radio interview in July 2015, Dowd did accuse Rose of rape. If Rose lost all his endorsement’s from that one comment, and it is still unproven that he did commit rape, then Dowd is now the one at fault.
26 years after Dowd won the case, he is still bashing Rose; that is ridiculous. One note here is apparently Rose had endorsement deals before Dowd made the comment.
The most important part of this lawsuit is going to be how many endorsements did Rose lose in the short time after Dowd made that comment. If Dowd made a presumably untrue comment, and Rose lost many endorsement deals, then Rose will win. The tricky part is Rose would not have field a lawsuit if he did not have endorsement deals, so it is hard not to believe Rose.
Next: Your NL All Star Game starting pitcher?
This case is in its early stages, and there are still many questions to be answered. Why would Dowd accuse Rose of something 26 years after Dowd won? Why would Rose lose all of his endorsement deals over a presumable lie? We will have to wait and see.