Phillies

Pete Rose

By Kyle Scott

Published: Aug 2nd, 2017 · 9:35 AM EDT

---

We all know what happened the last time I believed Howard Eskin, but he reported on the WIP Morning Show today that, as of yesterday, the Phillies had planned to go ahead with the Pete Rose ceremony next week:

Rose is due back in town next week to be honored by the Phillies and placed on their Wall of Fame, something fans have been clamoring for ever since the Phils had to stoop to the level of Mike Lieberthal whilst ignoring the elephant in the room that was the all-time hits leader. Rose will also be the guest of honor at Joe Conklin’s Philly Sports Roast.

Problem: He may be a rapist.

Recent court documents claim that he had a relationship in the 1970s with a girl before she turned 16, which was the legal age of consent. From ESPN.com:

A sworn statement by an unidentified woman, contained in a motion filed Monday in John Dowd’s defense against Pete Rose’s defamation lawsuit, alleges that Rose had a sexual relationship with the woman for several years in the 1970s, beginning before she turned 16.

In the majority of states, including Ohio — where both the woman and Rose lived at the time — the age of legal consent is 16, so her allegation amounts to statutory rape.

…

Rose sued Dowd for defamation a year ago, in U.S. District Court in Eastern Pennsylvania, because Dowd claimed in a 2015 radio interview that Rose had underage girls delivered to him at spring training and committed statutory rape.

In the interview, with a station in West Chester, Pennsylvania, Dowd said, “Michael Bertolini told us, you know, he not only ran bets, but ran young girls down at spring training, ages 12 to 14. Isn’t that lovely? So that’s statutory rape every time you do that.”

In Rose’s complaint, he denied Dowd’s allegation, calling it “entirely false in every respect.”

The Phillies are in a tight spot. These claims are hardly proven. This is one of Rose’s few chances to be embraced by an MLB club in any official capacity. Should the Phillies cancel their plans, it will be a nasty blow to Rose’s relationship with the game, which is already on shaky ground, though increasingly improving footing.

Less important, Rose is scheduled to get roasted roasted, and few things could make for a more taboo topic than statutory rape. He never found something he couldn’t hit… even if it still lived at home and had a 9 p.m. curfew. You get the point. Not great form. As of now the event is still scheduled to take place.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the claim (mind you it’s related to a lawsuit against a guy who has notoriously smeared Rose at every chance he gets), which is that Rose had a relationship with a girl when she was under 16, which at the time was the legal age of consent in Ohio, the whole situation is gross. But everything about Rose has always been gross. He’s a disgusting guy. Just look at him. But if the allegation turns out to be false and Rose didn’t do something illegal 40 years ago, then should the Phillies really slam the door on his re-entry into the game? Probably not.

The problem is the situation will not be resolved in 10 days, so whatever decision is made will be based on unverified claims. It seems like an easy decision for the Phillies – just cancel the event – but it’s more complicated than it appears. They’re in a tough spot. Tough decision. They need a really good PR person on this one.