Tweet
Pete was called out -- umps got a walk
By Marc Lancaster, Post staff reporter
Major League Baseball has rarely shied away from the opportunity to send a message about the evils of placing bets on games.
It was true in 1919 when the Chicago White Sox threw the 1919 World Series to gamblers and the Reds. It was true when Pete Rose was banned from the game 70 years later.
Thus, it came as something of a surprise to many when it was revealed earlier this year that two umpires were quietly disciplined for gambling in 1989, shortly after the Rose case was resolved, and both men were allowed to keep their jobs. Though the umpires didn't bet on baseball, they bet on sports through a bookie - as did Rose, who continues to insist that he didn't bet on baseball despite suspicions to the contrary.
The New York Daily News and the Boston Herald reported in early March that veteran umpires Frank Pulli and Richie Garcia were put on three months' probation by Major League Baseball for placing bets with bookies in Florida during the off season.
Former commissioner Fay Vincent told The Post in a recent interview that the umpires and current New York Yankees bench coach Don Zimmer were all betting through the same Tampa Bay-area bookie.
Zimmer, a Cincinnati native who, like Rose, graduated from Western Hills High School, wrote in his 2001 autobiography "Zim: A Baseball Life" that he was reprimanded by Vincent in 1989 for betting on football and basketball games.
The umpires' punishment, however, wasn't made public at the time, and both men continued calling games for 10 more years. Pulli is now working for baseball as an umpire supervisor, while Garcia is serving as a consultant to Major League Baseball.
Now, more than a decade after the fact, the matter is public knowledge, and current baseball officials haven't changed their stance. Major League Baseball executive vice president for baseball operations Sandy Alderson, whose office oversees the umpires, said he has no problem with Pulli and Garcia holding supervisory roles.
"Nothing ever came out about it, and now, (13) years later, we're supposed to second-guess the decision made by the commissioner at the time?" Alderson said. "That wouldn't have been fair to the commissioner, Fay Vincent, and it wouldn't have been fair to the umpires."
Washington attorney John Dowd, who led the Rose investigation, also handled the umpires' case, but according to current and former baseball officials, the similarities between the two situations ended there. Dowd said he uncovered no evidence that the umpires bet on baseball, which Rose was accused of doing.
Though the allegations against the umpires came to baseball's attention around the same time as those against Rose, Dowd said there are no connections between the cases. He compiled volumes of evidence for his report on the Rose situation, but found out about the umpires' gambling through a different source.
"It was brought to our attention by law enforcement, which is very normal," Dowd said.
"The commissioner has good relations with law enforcement. It's just a normal course when things come up in search warrants and wiretaps and they involve people in baseball, law enforcement will notify us."
Dowd said an in-depth examination of telephone records, bank records and other documents, along with interviews of various witnesses, showed no links between the umpires' actions and betting on baseball. To Vincent, that detail made all the difference in his decision to show leniency to the umpires.
"Anybody who doesn't understand that misses the crux of the whole point," Vincent said.
"With these guys, there was nothing involving baseball in anything they did. They were home in the wintertime, they were betting with a small-time bookie, small amounts of money on football and basketball. It's pretty hard to make that into a major issue involving baseball."
Rose doesn't necessarily agree. In a recent telephone interview from Florida, Rose admitted that he doesn't know the details of the umpires' case, but nonetheless was troubled by the approach Major League Baseball took with it.
"They're saying (the umpires) didn't bet on baseball, right?" Rose said. "Well believe it or not, I got a letter from the commissioner back then saying that there was no finding that I bet on baseball. So what the (heck's) the difference?"
Rose's longtime attorney, Roger Makley, noted that baseball never officially determined that Rose bet on baseball. A key component of the agreement signed by Rose and the late commissioner Bart Giamatti on Aug. 23, 1989 is a line that reads: "Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game."
Makley, who became aware of the umpires' punishment not long after it was handed down more than a decade ago, wondered about baseball's motivation.
"I don't think they're consistent in the way that they apply the rules of baseball, and I think that is not doing justice to Pete Rose," Makley said. "I think t Vincent, who as Giamatti's top deputy at the time actually wrote the sentence in the agreement about Rose and betting on baseball, said it was merely a technicality. Rose refused to come before Giamatti for a hearing, so the league couldn't issue a formal finding that he had bet on baseball.
"It's like saying there was never a trial, so therefore there couldn't be a verdict," Vincent said.
In contrast, both Vincent and Dowd said the umpires were forthcoming and cooperated fully with the investigation. Their accommodating attitudes probably contributed to the more lenient punishment they ended up receiving, said Dowd.
"Obviously, anyone who cooperates and we find to be honest based upon the evidence is going to have a much better shot with the commissioner," he said.
Like Zimmer, the umpires came to New York for a hearing and answered all the questions Major League officials had about their illegal betting.
"I believed them," Vincent said. "The umpires and Zimmer were all very clear. Zimmer was petrified that he was going to be suspended - he's never gotten a paycheck from anybody in his life other than from baseball. Same with the umpires. They were very good umpires.
"I think I frightened them all by making it clear that I didn't want any more (illegal betting), and I put them on probation. They said you'll never hear another word about it."
That vow seemed to hold true. Zimmer wrote in his book that after his meeting with Vincent, he never bet on football or basketball games again. And baseball officials say the umpires immediately fell into line as well.
As part of their probation, the umpires reported regularly to baseball's director of security Kevin Hallinan, who also periodically checked in on their activities on his own, said Dowd. Since then, Pulli and Garcia have gone about their professional lives with no further incidents.
So why was the umpires' punishment kept quiet, while investigations into the gambling habits of Rose, Zimmer and former player Lenny Dykstra were made public? Dowd said it was simply a question of procedure.
"Normally, matters that are handled by the commissioner are confidential, and normally the commissioner doesn't say anything publicly unless there's a reason to do so because the matter is public," Dowd said.
Vincent also said bringing out the information about Pulli and Garcia would have been detrimental to their ability to do their job.
people can perform," he said. "That is, an umpire who I put on probation is in tough shape when he's arguing with a manager over a ball-and-strike call.
"It didn't seem to me to be a matter that would affect anybody but me or them. I don't think there was anything served by making it public."
Rose's attorney said he saw that decision as another example of a double standard when it comes to his client.
"They deal with these situations in an inconsistent way, and when it suits their purpose, they make no public comment and keep it hidden from the press," Makley said. "When they want somebody to know something and it suits their purpose, they make an issue out of it and it's disseminated to the media."
If nothing else, Rose's punishment continues to suit baseball's purpose in one crucial way: by serving as a deterrent.
Gambling has been around longer than the game of baseball, and the two are natural partners. The public learned that for the first time in 1920, when the game's first commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, banned eight members of the "Black Sox" for life after it was revealed they'd taken money from gamblers to throw the previous year's World Series to the Reds.
Even today, the lessons from the Black Sox scandal are still fresh to the game's guardians. Their biggest fear is that a player - especially a star, a difference-maker - will fall into the clutches of a bookie and be persuaded to do something that will alter the outcome of a game.
Assuming the evidence against him is accurate, is Rose the only player who ever bet on baseball while still involved with the game? Probably not. But since 1989, his name has been synonymous with the power Major League Baseball can wield to punish those who commit the one unforgivable sin.
There are posters in every big-league clubhouse reminding players what can happen to them if they bet on baseball, and Vincent believes they've been scared straight.
"They understand, there's no fooling around with that," said Vincent. "And the fact that Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame is a pretty severe indication."
The umpires' punishment doesn't send quite the same message, but as everyone involved is quick to note, the cases were very different. So even as he holds out hope for reinstatement, Rose said he has no ill will whatsoever for Pulli and Garcia.
"Those umpires were good umpires, they're good guys, and they're friends of mine," Rose said.
"But it is kind of strange the way they handled that case, compared to the way they handled mine."
By Marc Lancaster, Post staff reporter
Major League Baseball has rarely shied away from the opportunity to send a message about the evils of placing bets on games.
It was true in 1919 when the Chicago White Sox threw the 1919 World Series to gamblers and the Reds. It was true when Pete Rose was banned from the game 70 years later.
Thus, it came as something of a surprise to many when it was revealed earlier this year that two umpires were quietly disciplined for gambling in 1989, shortly after the Rose case was resolved, and both men were allowed to keep their jobs. Though the umpires didn't bet on baseball, they bet on sports through a bookie - as did Rose, who continues to insist that he didn't bet on baseball despite suspicions to the contrary.
The New York Daily News and the Boston Herald reported in early March that veteran umpires Frank Pulli and Richie Garcia were put on three months' probation by Major League Baseball for placing bets with bookies in Florida during the off season.
Former commissioner Fay Vincent told The Post in a recent interview that the umpires and current New York Yankees bench coach Don Zimmer were all betting through the same Tampa Bay-area bookie.
Zimmer, a Cincinnati native who, like Rose, graduated from Western Hills High School, wrote in his 2001 autobiography "Zim: A Baseball Life" that he was reprimanded by Vincent in 1989 for betting on football and basketball games.
The umpires' punishment, however, wasn't made public at the time, and both men continued calling games for 10 more years. Pulli is now working for baseball as an umpire supervisor, while Garcia is serving as a consultant to Major League Baseball.
Now, more than a decade after the fact, the matter is public knowledge, and current baseball officials haven't changed their stance. Major League Baseball executive vice president for baseball operations Sandy Alderson, whose office oversees the umpires, said he has no problem with Pulli and Garcia holding supervisory roles.
"Nothing ever came out about it, and now, (13) years later, we're supposed to second-guess the decision made by the commissioner at the time?" Alderson said. "That wouldn't have been fair to the commissioner, Fay Vincent, and it wouldn't have been fair to the umpires."
Washington attorney John Dowd, who led the Rose investigation, also handled the umpires' case, but according to current and former baseball officials, the similarities between the two situations ended there. Dowd said he uncovered no evidence that the umpires bet on baseball, which Rose was accused of doing.
Though the allegations against the umpires came to baseball's attention around the same time as those against Rose, Dowd said there are no connections between the cases. He compiled volumes of evidence for his report on the Rose situation, but found out about the umpires' gambling through a different source.
"It was brought to our attention by law enforcement, which is very normal," Dowd said.
"The commissioner has good relations with law enforcement. It's just a normal course when things come up in search warrants and wiretaps and they involve people in baseball, law enforcement will notify us."
Dowd said an in-depth examination of telephone records, bank records and other documents, along with interviews of various witnesses, showed no links between the umpires' actions and betting on baseball. To Vincent, that detail made all the difference in his decision to show leniency to the umpires.
"Anybody who doesn't understand that misses the crux of the whole point," Vincent said.
"With these guys, there was nothing involving baseball in anything they did. They were home in the wintertime, they were betting with a small-time bookie, small amounts of money on football and basketball. It's pretty hard to make that into a major issue involving baseball."
Rose doesn't necessarily agree. In a recent telephone interview from Florida, Rose admitted that he doesn't know the details of the umpires' case, but nonetheless was troubled by the approach Major League Baseball took with it.
"They're saying (the umpires) didn't bet on baseball, right?" Rose said. "Well believe it or not, I got a letter from the commissioner back then saying that there was no finding that I bet on baseball. So what the (heck's) the difference?"
Rose's longtime attorney, Roger Makley, noted that baseball never officially determined that Rose bet on baseball. A key component of the agreement signed by Rose and the late commissioner Bart Giamatti on Aug. 23, 1989 is a line that reads: "Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game."
Makley, who became aware of the umpires' punishment not long after it was handed down more than a decade ago, wondered about baseball's motivation.
"I don't think they're consistent in the way that they apply the rules of baseball, and I think that is not doing justice to Pete Rose," Makley said. "I think t Vincent, who as Giamatti's top deputy at the time actually wrote the sentence in the agreement about Rose and betting on baseball, said it was merely a technicality. Rose refused to come before Giamatti for a hearing, so the league couldn't issue a formal finding that he had bet on baseball.
"It's like saying there was never a trial, so therefore there couldn't be a verdict," Vincent said.
In contrast, both Vincent and Dowd said the umpires were forthcoming and cooperated fully with the investigation. Their accommodating attitudes probably contributed to the more lenient punishment they ended up receiving, said Dowd.
"Obviously, anyone who cooperates and we find to be honest based upon the evidence is going to have a much better shot with the commissioner," he said.
Like Zimmer, the umpires came to New York for a hearing and answered all the questions Major League officials had about their illegal betting.
"I believed them," Vincent said. "The umpires and Zimmer were all very clear. Zimmer was petrified that he was going to be suspended - he's never gotten a paycheck from anybody in his life other than from baseball. Same with the umpires. They were very good umpires.
"I think I frightened them all by making it clear that I didn't want any more (illegal betting), and I put them on probation. They said you'll never hear another word about it."
That vow seemed to hold true. Zimmer wrote in his book that after his meeting with Vincent, he never bet on football or basketball games again. And baseball officials say the umpires immediately fell into line as well.
As part of their probation, the umpires reported regularly to baseball's director of security Kevin Hallinan, who also periodically checked in on their activities on his own, said Dowd. Since then, Pulli and Garcia have gone about their professional lives with no further incidents.
So why was the umpires' punishment kept quiet, while investigations into the gambling habits of Rose, Zimmer and former player Lenny Dykstra were made public? Dowd said it was simply a question of procedure.
"Normally, matters that are handled by the commissioner are confidential, and normally the commissioner doesn't say anything publicly unless there's a reason to do so because the matter is public," Dowd said.
Vincent also said bringing out the information about Pulli and Garcia would have been detrimental to their ability to do their job.
people can perform," he said. "That is, an umpire who I put on probation is in tough shape when he's arguing with a manager over a ball-and-strike call.
"It didn't seem to me to be a matter that would affect anybody but me or them. I don't think there was anything served by making it public."
Rose's attorney said he saw that decision as another example of a double standard when it comes to his client.
"They deal with these situations in an inconsistent way, and when it suits their purpose, they make no public comment and keep it hidden from the press," Makley said. "When they want somebody to know something and it suits their purpose, they make an issue out of it and it's disseminated to the media."
If nothing else, Rose's punishment continues to suit baseball's purpose in one crucial way: by serving as a deterrent.
Gambling has been around longer than the game of baseball, and the two are natural partners. The public learned that for the first time in 1920, when the game's first commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, banned eight members of the "Black Sox" for life after it was revealed they'd taken money from gamblers to throw the previous year's World Series to the Reds.
Even today, the lessons from the Black Sox scandal are still fresh to the game's guardians. Their biggest fear is that a player - especially a star, a difference-maker - will fall into the clutches of a bookie and be persuaded to do something that will alter the outcome of a game.
Assuming the evidence against him is accurate, is Rose the only player who ever bet on baseball while still involved with the game? Probably not. But since 1989, his name has been synonymous with the power Major League Baseball can wield to punish those who commit the one unforgivable sin.
There are posters in every big-league clubhouse reminding players what can happen to them if they bet on baseball, and Vincent believes they've been scared straight.
"They understand, there's no fooling around with that," said Vincent. "And the fact that Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame is a pretty severe indication."
The umpires' punishment doesn't send quite the same message, but as everyone involved is quick to note, the cases were very different. So even as he holds out hope for reinstatement, Rose said he has no ill will whatsoever for Pulli and Garcia.
"Those umpires were good umpires, they're good guys, and they're friends of mine," Rose said.
"But it is kind of strange the way they handled that case, compared to the way they handled mine."