Commissioner Manfred's full decision on Pete Rose's reinstatement bid 
 
 "I, therefore, must reject Mr. Rose's application for reinstatement." 
 
 The all-time hits leader, 74, was placed on the permanently ineligible list for violating Major League Baseball's strict rule against betting on baseball on Aug. 23, 1989. Subsequently, the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum declared that all players on that list would also be ineligible for election. 
 
 Manfred's decision, which was communicated to Rose both verbally and in writing, does not directly address that issue. 
 
 Gammons on Rose's ban Gammons on Rose's ban on MLB Tonight Peter Gammons joins MLB Tonight to discuss the implication of Pete Rose's permanent ban and the history of the case 
 
 He wrote: "It is not part of my authority of responsibility here to make any determination concerning Mr. Rose's eligibility as a candidate for election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. In fact, in my view, the considerations that should drive a decision on whether an individual should be allowed to work in Baseball are not the same as those that should drive a decision on Hall of Fame eligibility. … Thus, any debate over Mr. Rose's eligibility for the Hall of Fame is one that must take place in a different forum." 
 
 • Justice: No other choice but to maintain Rose's ban 
 
 The National Baseball Hall of Fame later addressed the situation in a statement: "Pete Rose remains ineligible for Hall of Fame consideration, based on the Hall of Fame's bylaws, which preclude any individual on baseball's ineligible list from being considered a candidate for election." 
 
 • Manfred: Rose's Hall eligibility a separate issue 
 
 Rose formally exercised his right to appeal his case on April 1, 2015. Manfred first requested a "comprehensive review" of the issues from his staff and then spoke to him in person on Sept. 24. 
 
 The three-page decision both reiterated the importance of Rule 21 and made it clear Manfred does not think that Rose has "reconfigured" his life as former Commissioner Bart Giamatti urged him to do in 1989. 
 
 "I believe that, at a minimum, there must be objective evidence which demonstrates that the applicant has fundamentally changed his life and that, based on such changes, the applicant does not pose a risk for violating Rule 21 in the future," Manfred wrote. 
 
 "What has been presented to me for consideration falls well short of these requirements. It is not at all clear to me that Mr. Rose has a grasp of the scope of his violations of Rule 21. He claims not to remember significant misconduct detailed in the Dowd Report and corroborated by Michael Bertolini's betting notebook." 
 
 The latter is a reference to the notebook of a Rose associate that the Commissioner's Office obtained after the publication of an ESPN report on June 23, 2015, which appeared to show that he had bet on the Reds as an active player in 1985 and 1986. Rose has admitted only to wagering on the team after becoming the manager. 
 
 "He made assertions concerning his betting habits that were directly contradicted by documentary evidence. … And, significantly, he told me that currently he bets recreationally and legally on horses and sports, including Baseball," Manfred wrote. 
 
 In a footnote, the decision adds: "Even more troubling, in our interview, Rose initially denied betting on Baseball currently and only later in the interview did he 'clarify' his response to admit such betting." 
 
 The decision also disputes Rose's contention that he bet on the Reds to win every game. While noting that how often he wagered and which team he put his money on doesn't matter regarding the violation of Rule 21, it points out that his decision to pass on certain games may have been a tip-off to those who were aware of his activity. 
 
 Verducci on Rose's ban Verducci on Rose's permanent ban MLB Network insider Tom Verducci talks about Commissioner Manfred not lifting Pete Rose's permanent ban for gambling on baseball 
 
 Continued Manfred: "Mr. Rose's public and private comments … provide me with little confidence that he has a mature understanding of his wrongful conduct, that he has accepted full responsibility for it, or that he understands the damage he has caused. … I am also not convinced that he has avoided the type of conduct and associations that originally led to his placement on the permanently ineligible list." 
 
 Rose may not associate with any Major or Minor League club. These rules, however, do not cover relationships with third parties that do business with MLB. So he may pursue such opportunities unless it involves an association with a Major League club, in which case the proposal must be submitted to the Commissioner's Office for review. 
 
 Manfred did acknowledge that Rose had an exceptional career. 
 
 "Notwithstanding this conclusion, I respect Mr. Rose's accomplishments as a player and, as result, I will continue to allow him to participate in ceremonial activities that present no threat to the integrity of the game, provided that the activities are approved by me in advance," he wrote. 
 
 In a statement, Reds president and chief executive officer Bob Castellini said, "The Commissioner called me this morning prior to the announcement. We respect his decision on the matter of Pete Rose and are grateful for his diligence and the amount of time he spent on the matter. We also appreciate that the Commissioner stated that Hall of Fame consideration is a separate issue and we and the fans think he deserves that opportunity. We are pleased that we have had and will continue to have opportunities to commemorate Pete's remarkable on-field accomplishments. Any future plans to celebrate Pete's career with the Reds first will be discussed with the Commissioner and then will be communicated publicly at the appropriate time." ||||| For years one of the primary defenses of Pete Rose has centered on the notion that he only bet on baseball as a manager, not as a player. ESPN’s Outside the Lines is reporting, however, that that is not the case: 
 
 But new documents obtained by Outside the Lines indicate Rose bet extensively on baseball — and on the Cincinnati Reds — as he racked up the last hits of a record-smashing career in 1986. The documents go beyond the evidence presented in the 1989 Dowd report that led to Rose’s banishment and provide the first written record that Rose bet while he was still on the field. “This does it. This closes the door,” said John Dowd, the former federal prosecutor who led MLB’s investigation. 
 
 The documents — which you can see via the ESPN link above — were part of a separate organized crime investigation which had nothing to do with Rose specifically or gambling. The records have been sealed for years and even Dowd was unable to get them for the original Rose investigation. He had testimony of an organized crime figure at the time, but no corroboration. 
 
 The bets tend to be around $2,000 a game. He bet on multiple games a day for multiple days in a row at a time, his addiction to gambling made plain. 
 
 The documents do not provide any evidence that Rose bet against the Reds. Worth noting, however, that baseball’s rules against gambling do not make a distinction, and the competitive integrity of a game can be compromised whether one bets for or against oneself. Also worth noting that, for years, Pete Rose has steadfastly denied betting on baseball while he was still an active player. 
 
 Rose is currently appealing his banishment from the game, with Commissioner Rob Manfred stating that he will give Rose’s case a full and fresh review. Some have speculated that his reinstatement could come at the time of the All-Star Game in Cincinnati next month, or soon after. As it is, he has been given permission to participate in on-field activities during the All-Star festivities. One would have to think, however, that this new information will put a serious damper on his appeal.
– The MLB player with the most hits in the league's history should be a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame, but that's hard to do when you've been permanently banned from baseball—again. Commissioner Rob Manfred was reportedly set to tell Pete Rose on Thursday he won't lift the permanent ban against Rose that's been in place since 1989, but queries by the New York Times appeared to expedite Manfred's announcement, which he made Monday instead. MLB.com notes Manfred informed Rose, both verbally and in writing, of his decision. The "stark language" of the league's rules dictates "that the penalty for a player or manager who bets on a game in which he has a duty to perform is mandatory, permanent ineligibility," Manfred says in his announcement accompanying the MLB press release. He adds he had instructed staff to gather any new evidence that may have emerged since the 1989 Dowd Report that helped place Rose on the league's ineligible list, based on evidence Rose bet on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds—including bets on his own team. In addition to a polygraph test and a private meeting between Rose and Manfred in September, that new evidence included an incriminating notebook revealed in a June ESPN report that indicates Rose also bet while still playing for the Reds. Manfred notes that during that conversation, Rose had inconsistent stories, made contradictory statements, and couldn't remember important facts from the Dowd document. Another nugget came to light during Manfred and Rose's meeting that appears to have influenced the decision. "Significantly, [Rose] told me that currently he bets recreationally and legally on horses and sports, including Baseball," Manfred notes. Interestingly, Manfred says that while Rose won't be reinstated, that's an entirely different issue than whether he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame, a debate he says "must take place in a different forum."