THE PETE ROSE INVESTIGATION : EXCERPTS FROM REPORT SUBMITTED TO COMMISSIONER

Excerpts from the report on Pete Rose submitted to the commissioner of baseball May 9 by investigator John Dowd. The report was made public Monday.

INTRODUCTION

. . . Pete Rose has denied under oath ever betting on major league baseball or associating with anyone who bet on major league baseball. However, the investigation has developed evidence to the contrary. The testimony and the documentary evidence gathered in the course of the investigation demonstrates that Pete Rose bet on baseball, and in particular, on games of the Cincinnati Reds baseball club, during the 1985, 1986, and 1987 seasons.

The evidence showed that with few exceptions, Rose did not deal directly with bookmakers but rather placed his bets through others.

. . . Although Rose placed his bets with (Ronald) Peters primarily through Tommy Gioiosa, on several occasions Rose placed bets on baseball games, including Cincinnati Reds games, directly with Peters. Rose’s dealings with Gioiosa, and ultimately with Peters, are corroborated by the testimony of others and by Rose’s own financial records as well. Rose admitted placing bets with Gioiosa on football and basketball games, but denied placing any bets on baseball games.

. . . During the the 1987 baseball season, Rose utilized Paul Janszen to place his baseball bets after Rose and Gioiosa had a falling out in the spring of 1987. Janszen relayed Rose’s baseball bets to an acquaintance of Rose, Steve Chevashore, who in turn placed Rose’s bets with a bookmaker in Staten Island, N.Y., identified only as “Val.” Rose’s betting on professional baseball, including Reds games, was testified to by Janszen and his girlfriend, Danita Marcum, and was discussed during a telephone conversation between Janszen and Chevashore. Rose’s betting on baseball is further corroborated by betting records from Rose’s home which have been identified by an expert as being in Rose’s handwriting. Rose has denied placing any such bets with Janszen at any time.

In May 1987, “Val” refused to accept bets on behalf of Rose due to Rose’s failure to pay gambling debts. Thereafter, Rose’s baseball bets were again placed with Ron Peters. However, instead of being placed by Gioiosa, Rose’s bets were placed with Peters and by Paul Janszen. Between May and July 1987, Rose bet with Peters $2,000 per game on baseball, including Reds games. Rose’s betting on baseball was also witnessed by Jim Procter and Dave Bernstein, who were acquaintances of Janszen.

THE ROSE-GIOIOSA-PETERS BETTING: 1985 AND 1986

The betting records of Janszen and Peters, however, indicate baseball bets of $500, $1,500, $2,000 on the Cincinnati Reds and other major league teams. According to Janszen and Peters, the $500 baseball bets were Janszen’s and the $2,000 bets were Rose’s.

. . . Peters testified that he took bets from Gioiosa and Pete Rose during the period from late 1984 to late 1986, when he stopped taking Rose’s action. He stated that Pete Rose bet on professional football, college basketball, and major league baseball. He specifically stated that Pete Rose bet on major league baseball games in 1985, 1986 and 1987, including games played by the Cincinnati Reds while Pete Rose was a player and manager.

. . . Rose admitted that he has bet on sports events since 1975. The only person with whom Rose acknowledged making bets was Tommy Gioiosa, with whom Rose said he placed bets on professional football and college and professional basketball games, from 1984-1985. Rose stated Gioiosa was not a bookmaker, but claimed he did not know with whom Gioiosa placed the bets. Rose stated that Gioiosa never called a bookmaker from Rose’s house.

During the deposition, Rose revealed a good deal of personal knowledge of how bookmakers operate. For example, Rose stated that he settled up his bets on Tuesday after the weekend and Monday night football games were over. Rose explained that bookies make their money by charging a 10 percent fee, which he volunteered was called “vigorish,” a bookmaking term.

PAUL JANSZEN AND DANITA MARCUM

Janszen testified he recalled that Pete Rose bet through Gioiosa on the 1986 National League playoffs between Houston and the New York Mets.

Danita Marcum (Janszen’s girlfriend) confirmed that she and Paul Janszen were invited to Pete Rose’s home during the period of September through December of 1986. She recalled witnessing Rose, Gioiosa and Bertolini placing bets. She said she saw large amounts of cash in Pete Rose’s home.

In the middle of February 1987, Rose invited Janszen and Marcum to come to his home in Florida while he was at spring training.

Following spring training sessions, Rose and Janszen routinely would go to Tampa Bay Downs Racetrack. There, Rose introduced Janszen to Mario Nunez. . . . Rose also introduced Janszen to Steve Chevashore, and Chevashore’s uncle, Howie Bernstein. Janszen watched Rose bet large amounts of money on horse racing. According to Janszen, Rose had Chevashore cash his winning tickets to evade his tax liability.

Rose however, denied that Chevashore ever “ran” bets for him at the track. Rose also testified that he bet very little money at Tampa Bay Downs and that the most he lost there was “seven hundred bucks.”

At Pete Rose’s request, Janszen began placing Rose’s bets with Steve Chevashore on various sports action, including basketball, hockey and later, baseball.

Rose, Janszen and Chevashore had an understanding that the size of the bets Janszen was placing for Rose would always be for $2,000, “no matter what the game was, no matter when the game was being played.” . . . Rose denied that Paul Janszen ever placed bets for him on baseball, football or basketball games, or did anything other than possibly place a bet for him at the racetrack.

As the Janszen-Chevashore relationship continued, Janszen learned the identity of the bookmaker with whom Chevashore used to place Rose’s bets. Janszen never knew his last name but his nickname was Val, and he was located in Staten Island, N.Y.

In April, Rose asked Janszen to continue placing the bets with Steve Chevashore in Florida. At this time, Rose was betting on baseball, basketball and hockey. Rose’s betting activity is corroborated not only by the other evidence previously described, but also by documentary evidence such as betting sheets showing bets on baseball games in Rose’s own handwriting; Janszen’s betting notebook; and the numerous telephone calls to Chevashore from Janszen’s home and Rose’s home. In mid-April 1987, Chevashore directed Janszen to place Rose’s bets directly with Val in New York.

In a taped conversation between Paul Janszen and Steve Chevashore on Dec. 27, 1988, Chevashore confirmed the incident, and that Rose was betting on the Cincinnati-Montreal game.

Janszen continued to place bets on baseball and other sports with Val on behalf of Rose until the middle of May 1987 when Val refused to take any more bets from Pete Rose because of Rose’s unpaid debts.

From April 7, 1987, until May 13, 1977, Rose lost $67,900 as a result of his bets with Val. Rose however, gave Janszen only a small amount of money to cover those losses.

ROSE-JANSZEN-PETERS BETTING

Since Val refused to take any more action, Rose asked Paul Janszen to contact Ron Peters to place his bets. Peters informed Janszen that he was willing to take Rose’s action, but that Rose still owed him $34,000 from Rose’s 1986 betting. Janszen relayed Peters’ message to Rose. Rose explained to Janszen that during spring training 1987, he had authorized his attorney, Reuven Katz, to issue a check from his account in the amount of $34,000 to Tommy Gioiosa to pay off the debt to Peters. Accordingly, Janszen told Peters that if he had not been paid, it was only because Gioiosa had not given the $34,000 from Rose’s check to him. Therefore, to demonstrate Rose’s good faith in paying his debt to Peters from the 1986 betting, Janszen obtained a copy of the $34,000 check in May 1987 from Pete Rose and gave it to Peters.

When asked how Peters got a copy of the check in May 1987, Rose said: “I couldn’t tell you.”

Dowd: Did you give it to them?

Rose: No, I didn’t give them the check.

Rose’s testimony that the $34,000 check of March 12, 1987, was to cover gambling losses on the 1987 Super Bowl and the 1987 NCAA basketball tournament appears to be in conflict with his other testimony that the most he ever bet was $2,000 on the Super Bowl and the fact that the 1987 NCAA tournament did not begin until March 12, 1987, the date of the $34,000 check.

After seeing a copy of the $34,000 check, Peters was satisfied that Rose had attempted to pay off the debt. Thus on May 17, 1987, Rose began betting with Peters again. Peters testified that during the period from May to July 4, 1987, Janszen was betting $2,000 to $5,000 for Rose per game on baseball, including the Reds. Peters testified that he would not have accepted bets if they were Janszen’s, and not Rose’s, due to Janszen’s lack of financial ability.

Dowd: And, again, were you satisfied that those bets were for Rose?

Peters: Yes.

Dowd: Would you have taken those size bets from Janszen?

Peters: No.

. . . Peters stated that Rose was his only betting customer for baseball. Peters also testified that Rose won $27,000 in the first week of betting in May 1987 and approximately $40,000 for the month of June 1987.

. . . Janszen testified that Rose initially won close to $25,000 during the first week of the betting with Peters, which Janszen collected and gave to Rose. During the second week, Rose lost most of the money he had won the first week. Janszen described how Rose took cash out of his kitchen cabinet, counted the money he lost, and gave it to him.

Janszen then took the money to Peters. Janszen testified that during June and July 1987, Pete Rose won approximately $40,000 from Peters betting on baseball, including the Reds.

Janszen: Pete started betting with Ron Peters. Pete won his first two weeks. I went up there and collected $25,000, $2,000 was mine and $23,000 was Pete’s. I handed Pete the money.

Janszen: Week three, he loses back almost all of it. I take the money from Pete’s house, from Pete’s hand, take it up to Franklin, Ohio, and that’s week three. Weeks four, five, six and seven and maybe eight, Pete won every week, or if he didn’t win, he might have broke even. . . . At the end of that time, he was up 40-some thousand dollars.

Peters, however, refused to pay the $40,000 to Rose because Rose owed him $34,000 from losses in 1986.

Rose testified that Paul Janszen never placed bets for him on any sports activity, nor was he aware that Janszen ever bet at all. This testimony is contradicted by Donald Stenger (an associate of Michael Fry). Stenger recalled having dinner with Pete and Carol Rose, Janszen, Danita Marcum and Stenger’s girlfriend at a Chinese restaurant in Philadelphia when the Reds were in town to play the Phillies in 1987. While at a restaurant, Janszen pulled out a sheet of paper with betting information on it and went to make a phone call. Stenger said there was no discussion about betting, or what was on the sheet. Stenger believes that the four or five games listed on the sheet were basketball games. He concluded this based on his personal opinion that Rose would never bet on baseball.

ROSE AND JOSEPH CAMBRA

Joseph Cambra, from Somerset, Mass., was charged with being a bookmaker in 1984, and subsequently pleaded guilty to gambling charges in 1986. Pete Rose acknowledged meeting Cambra during spring training in West Palm Beach, Fla., in February 1984, while Rose was a player with the Montreal Expos. Rose stated that he did now know Cambra was a bookmaker, or that he had been convicted of bookmaking, until about two weeks prior to his deposition on April 20, 1989.

Rose denied ever betting with Cambra or going to the racetrack with him. Rose testified that the only financial transaction he had with Cambra involved a real estate deal in which Cambra told Rose he could double his money.

Rose stated that he has seen Cambra five to six days a year from 1984 to 1989, during spring training. When Cambra comes to Florida, Rose asks the Reds traveling secretary to get Cambra a room. . . . When asked whether Cambra ever was in the Reds clubhouse, Rose responded, “Well, it’s all according to what your definition of the clubhouse is.” Rose stated that Cambra has been in his office, but not in the part of the clubhouse where the players are.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

Pete Rose denied under oath placing bets or causing others to place bets on the Cincinnati Reds and other ballgames of major league baseball. Indeed, Rose denied under oath ever associating with anyone placing bets on his behalf on the Cincinnati Reds or the games of major league baseball. He admitted placing bets with Tommy Gioiosa on other sports activity, but denied knowing the Ohio bookmaker or other bookmakers in New York. He denied being delinquent in paying his gambling losses or having borrowed from his associates and friends to pay his gambling losses.

THE KEY EVIDENCE

The evidence should be viewed as a whole in order to obtain a clear picture. Nevertheless, it is important to note the following five distinct pieces of evidence pointing to Pete Rose’s betting on the Reds and baseball.

--First, the three-page document in Rose’s handwriting recording baseball games and the results. Pete Rose’s explanation that he does not recognize the document or the handwriting is perhaps the only answer he can render given his posture in this case.

--Second, the notebook of Paul Janszen recording the betting action of Pete Rose from April 7, 1987, to May 3, 1987, on Reds games as well as other games. To those who might suggest the notebook was fabricated by an unpaid creditor, the next piece of evidence should be closely examined.

--Third, the telephone traffic in the collective telephone records bears remarkable witness to the betting action before the game time of the Cincinnati Reds--home or away, night or day--particularly the unexplained calls from Rose’s home and hotel rooms to Chevashore, Val and Peters during the baseball season. Rose offered no explanation for these telephone calls.

--Fourth, the betting records of Ron Peters which show baseball betting action on the Reds and other major league baseball games in 1987 by one customer.

--Fifth, the unguarded statements of Steve Chevashore on a tape contradicted Rose’s statement that Janszen, Chevashore and Val were not involved in the sports betting action on the Cincinnati Reds or major league baseball for Pete Rose.

--Sixth, the Bertolini tape reveals not only questions as to Rose’s testimony about his gambling habit, but the modus operandi employed by Rose to disguise and conceal his enormous gambling indebtedness, the identity of his bookmakers and his betting on baseball. The generating of funds through loans to Bertolini, the remission of checks to fictitious payees, and the delay in the production of bank records from Star Bank and Oak Hills Savings and Loan all raise serious question whether Pete Rose is trying to conceal his gambling on baseball and the Reds.

SUMMARIES OF PETERS AND JANSZEN TESTIMONY

The sworn, voluntary, corroborated testimony of Ron Peters, the bookmaker from Franklin, Ohio, establishes that he took bets from Pete Rose, and from Tommy Gioiosa, Paul Janszen and Danita Marcum on behalf of Pete Rose.

Paul Janszen has given voluntary, sworn testimony, without the promise of reward, that in April, May, June and July 1987 he placed bets of $2,000 per game on the Cincinnati Reds and other major league baseball games for Pete Rose with Steve Chevashore, a runner of bets in Florida; with Val, a clerk for a bookmaking operation in New York; and with Ron Peters, a bookmaker in Franklin, Ohio.

ANALYSIS OF ROSE’S TESTIMONY

Pete Rose testified he did not recognize the handwriting on the three betting slips found in his home. Yet, according to a handwriting expert, the games of the Cincinnati Reds are recorded in Rose’s handwriting on the betting sheets.

Pete Rose testified that he never bet on the Reds or on baseball with Ron Peters. Yet, his bets on the Reds and baseball appear in Peters’ betting records for the 1987 baseball season.

Pete Rose testified that he never bet on the Reds or on baseball with Paul Janszen or Danita Marcum. Yet, the records of Janszen and Marcum show bets on the Reds and baseball during the 1987 season.

Pete Rose did not explain how Ron Peters and Paul Janszen came into possession of a copy of the $34,000 check to Gioiosa written by Rose’s attorney on March 12, 1987.

Pete Rose claimed the $34,000 . . . was to pay for his gambling losses on the 1987 Super Bowl and the 1987 NCAA basketball championship, not the gambling losses to Ron Peters in 1986. But, the NCAA basketball tournament had not begun before March 12, 1987.

Pete Rose denies knowing Ron Peters . . . but the record of the Cincinnati Reds show tickets for Peters were ordered by Rose in 1986 and 1987.

Pete Rose said he entrusted Mike Bertolini with hundreds of thousands of dollars because Bertolini was an honest man. However, when Rose heard the unguarded statements by Bertolini on the April 4, 1988 tape, describing the payment of those funds to a New York bookmaker on behalf of Rose, Pete Rose said Bertolini was lying.

Pete Rose testified that he had never placed bets with a person named Val, had never spoken with a person named Val and did not know anyone named Val. . . . However, the unguarded statements of Chevashore on the Dec. 27, 1988, tape contradict Rose’s sworn testimony.

The evidence revealed that in order to protect his stature as one of the most famous baseball players in major league history, Pete Rose employed middlemen to place bets for him with bookmakers and at the racetrack and to pay gambling losses and collect gambling winnings, thereby concealing his gambling activity. Rose befriended, entertained and promoted the businesses of friends and through this arrangement protected his betting from public exposure.

He wrote checks payable to cash, to a close associate and to fictitious persons for amounts under $10,000 so as to avoid detection by the authorities.

Pete Rose testified that he was ignorant of the activities of his companions. His ignorance of their criminal activities allows Rose to use these young men for his own purposes and if they are caught--claim they are not credible.

The testimony of Peters, Janszen and Fry has been voluntary and forthright. Each has stood before the bar of justice and engaged in the most painful act of integrity--the admission of guilt to illegal acts. Each is now paying the debt society imposed for his acts against society. None of them has anything to gain for his voluntary act of cooperation with this investigation.