Replies

Let's not forget that the Dowd Report investigation was in progress when Rose agreed to the lifetime band if John Dowd would discontinue his investigation.

What was Pete afraid of Dowd discovering?

In 2002, thirteen years after the lifetime ban, when Rose was still denying that he bet on baseball, John Dowd was interviewed by the New York Post.

Dowd - and this is the guy who knows the evidence better than anyone else - said he thought it was "probably right" that Rose not only bet on Reds games but that he bet against the Reds during the mid-to-late-1980s when Rose managed Cincinnati.

To quote ESPN about the Dowd interview in 2002:

Dowd said Thursday he was asked by the Post whether he came across any evidence that Rose gambled against his team. Dowd said he told the paper there was some, but it was inconclusive.
"I was never able to tie it down,'' Dowd said. "It was unreliable, and that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it. I was not trying to start something here.''
Dowd also told the Post that Rose did not bet on the Reds whenever two pitchers, including Mario Soto, started, which "sent a message through the gambling community that the Reds can't win" on those days.

Dowd discontinued his investigation when Rose agreed to the lifetime ban. Repeat: the investigation that was turning up evidence that Rose bet against the Reds was terminated when Rose agreed to the lifetime ban.

The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is the sad end of a sorry episode. One of the game's greatest players has engaged in a variety of acts which have stained the game, and he must now live with the consequences of those acts. By choosing not to come to a hearing before me, and by choosing not to proffer any testimony or evidence contrary to the evidence and information contained in the report of the Special Counsel to the Commissioner, Mr. Rose has accepted baseball's ultimate sanction, lifetime ineligibility."

Statement by then Commissioner of Baseball, A. Bartlett Giamatti, August 24, 1989

Repeat: the investigation that was turning up evidence that Rose bet against the Reds was terminated when Rose agreed to the lifetime ban.

Actually, it makes no difference whatsoever whether Rose bet against the Reds. Even if he only bet on them to win, he was still in violation of Rule 21(d):

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Be advised that Rule 21 is posted in every major league clubhouse. And that the manager himself is charged with calling the attention of every one of his players to this posting at the beginning of Spring training, at the start off the regular season and periodically thereafter.

Accordingly, Pete himself had to read the second paragraph of 21(d) out loud at least three times annually.

Yet, he willfully and regularly broke that rule. Even if he never bet against his club, he was still subject to "being declared permanently ineligible".