River Rat - I Owe You All This Money
"I never thought about the money aspect of the game. I just wanted to play baseball." - Pete Rose
“Pete's attitude is well, Paul, I owe you all this money, and ... the bookie in Franklin owes me all this money. So, guess what, Paul, just get the money, get your money from the bookie. He is saying I won forty, I lost forty, as far as I am concerned, I am even. And that's how that worked. I said Pete you don't go into Shillitos Department Store, take something out and tell them, hey, go get the money from my brother, he owes me money. That is not how it works.”
Welcome to Ballpark Confidential: Baseball’s Backstory on Culture, Society, & History. Whether you’re a die-hard fan, a newcomer to the game, or just someone who enjoys a good baseball story, we’re set to dive deep into the essence of baseball, uncovering pivotal moments and key figures. This is more than a history lesson; it’s a judgment of how baseball reflects and influences our culture and society.
A new installment of River Rat – “Hustle, Heroism, and Hubris: The Pete Rose Conundrum” comes out every Friday!
In this first series, titled River Rat – “Hustle, Heroism, and Hubris: The Pete Rose Conundrum” I’m examining books, articles, opinions, watching TLC reality TV show “Hits & Mrs.” on Pete and will read the document that rocked Major League Baseball – The Dowd Report sparking a 35+ year debate on one of baseball’s greatest players.
Over the past several weeks, we have embarked on a comprehensive journey through the Dowd Report, breaking it down section by section. This analysis has allowed us to examine the evidence, testimonies, and conclusions that led to Pete Rose's lifetime ban from Major League Baseball. Each section of the Dowd Report has been explored to provide a clear and nuanced understanding of the events and actions that defined this pivotal moment in baseball history.
If you just started reading this series I suggest starting with Part One.
In this section of the Dowd Report highlights a significant financial disagreement that sheds light on Pete Rose's character and his handling of personal and professional relationships. Paul Janszen, a close associate who facilitated many of Rose's bets, claimed that Rose owed him approximately $44,000 for gambling debts that Janszen had paid off on Rose's behalf. Instead of repaying Janszen directly, Rose suggested that Janszen collect the money from the bookie, which Janszen found unreasonable. Consequently, only $6,000 of the $34,000 debt was paid by the bookie, leaving Janszen with a significant unpaid balance.
In March 1988, in an attempt to resolve the issue, Janszen met with Rose's attorney, Reuven Katz, to request repayment. Katz arranged for a $10,000 check to be given to Janszen, labeling it as a "loan," though Janszen never considered it as such. Later correspondence between Janszen and Katz's partner, Robert Pitcairn, reveals ongoing disputes over the repayment and the nature of the debt.
Rose's testimony further complicates the matter. He claimed that the $10,000 was a loan for legal fees, while Janszen insisted it was partial repayment for the debts Rose owed. Rose's response to Janszen's demands included counterclaims that Janszen owed him money for bounced checks and memorabilia sales.
This section of the report is crucial as it provides a deeper insight into Rose's character. Despite his public denials, evidence from multiple sources, including a recorded conversation with Mike Bertolini and statements from Reds' staff, indicated that Rose had been betting through Janszen. This directly contradicts Rose's deposition statements and paints a picture of a man entangled in deceit and financial irresponsibility.
As you read through this section, consider how Rose's actions and his handling of the debt dispute reflect on his integrity and character. This dispute not only underscores the ethical and legal issues surrounding Rose's gambling activities but also highlights the personal betrayals and conflicts that emerged as a result.
Section III. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION, E. THE ROSE–JANSZEN DEBT DISPUTE
As previously noted, Pete Rose owed Paul Janszen money because Janszen used his personal funds to pay off some of Rose's gambling debts. Janszen estimated that when Rose's betting with Peters stopped in July 1987, Rose owed Janszen approximately $44,000. Rose told Janszen he could get this money by collecting it from Peters. Janszen stated that:
“Pete's attitude is well, Paul, I owe you all this money, and ... the bookie in Franklin owes me all this money. So, guess what, Paul, just get the money, get your money from the bookie. He is saying I won forty, I lost forty, as far as I am concerned, I am even. And that's how that worked. I said Pete you don't go into Shillitos Department Store, take something out and tell them, hey, go get the money from my brother, he owes me money. That is not how it works.”
Subsequently, Peters recognized Rose's debt to Janszen, but only paid Janszen approximately $6,000 -- the difference between Rose's $34,000 debt and his $40,000 winnings.
In March 1988, Janszen attempted to get Rose to pay him the money still owed to him. He and Marcum had a meeting with Reuven Katz, Rose's attorney. Janszen told Katz that he was in trouble, and he needed money to hire a defense lawyer. Janszen said that Katz recommended several lawyers to Janszen. Janszen told Katz he needed some of the money he loaned Rose. Janszen told Katz about the gambling he had done for Rose, including betting on the Reds. According to Janszen, Katz did not question Janszen's account. Janszen said that Katz merely put his head down, made a gesture with his hands and said, "That's it; it's over." Janszen said that Katz did not accuse Janszen of lying about this matter.
Janszen's meeting with Katz took place about a week after Janszen was first contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI was not aware that Janszen was going to meet with Katz. In the meeting with Katz, Janszen volunteered that he would "protect" Rose with the federal authorities. Janszen testified that Katz replied, "I [Janszen] had to do what I felt I had to do."
Janszen said that Katz told him he would talk to Rose about the matter while in Florida. According to Janszen, Katz later instructed Janszen to go to an accountant's office where there would be a check waiting for him. Janszen did so and picked up a $10,000 check drawn on Rose's account, payable to Paul Janszen, dated March 18, 1988. The check bears the notation "For loan." Janszen testified that Katz said, "We can just make it look like it's a loan."
However, according to Janszen, Katz never asked Janszen to sign a promissory note for the $10,000, and Janszen never considered it to be a loan.
We inquired of counsel for Rose whether Mr. Katz would be available to be interviewed. Counsel for Rose responded that Katz was available to answer questions on a non-privileged basis. Because of the difficulty in distinguishing between privileged and non-privileged information, we decided, out of prudence and respect for the attorney-client privilege between Rose and Katz, to pursue the information from non-privileged sources. If you should decide to send this report to Rose and his counsel, Katz may wish to take the opportunity to respond to the statements of Janszen.
Rose testified that the $10,000 check was issued to Janszen because "Paul asked me to loan him some money because he needed a lawyer." When asked whether Janszen called him to discuss the request, Rose stated that Janszen called Reuven Katz, not Rose. Rose testified Katz called him and told him Janszen wanted $20,000. Rose told Katz he would loan Janszen half that amount because he did not know if Janszen had enough money to pay back $20,000. Katz told Rose that Janszen needed the money for a lawyer. When Rose asked Katz why Janszen needed a lawyer, Katz told Rose, "I don't know." When Rose was asked whether Katz told him that Janszen had claimed Rose owed him money, Rose testified, "I don't remember that." Rose did not ask Janszen to sign a promissory note for the $10,000 because he thought Janszen was a friend. Rose also said that the check was as good as a note because it contained the notation "loan."
On January 20, 1989, Paul Janszen wrote a letter to Reuven Katz which referred to their meeting the previous year about the money Rose owed Janszen. In the letter, Janszen states that he has the feeling that Katz and Rose are taking a "non-committal stance" regarding the money owed Janszen because they thought it would "discourage" him and he would "dry up and blow away." Janszen went on to write:
A personal loan was made to Pete Rose by myself in June 1987. His promise to start paying me back came and went each month with a new excuse why he couldn't come up with any. He kept falling back on the same promise that if he didn't pay me by December 1987, he would use money from the sale of his 4192 Mizuno bat he broke Ty Cobb's record with to settle up with me. It never happened. Then when his wife started building their new house in Florida, the idea of paying me back seemed to vanish from his mind. Only after I contacted you in March 1988 did I receive partial payment by check.
* * * * * * * *
For years I heard the stories that Mr. Rose didn't like paying his debts and had left several people hanging out to dry. Well, they certainly were true.
* * * * * * * *
Well Reuven, so much for my personal feelings about the man. My intentions are that if I can't settle this quietly and quickly out of court, then let's jump into the ring and take it to court. What we have here is a situation that calls for the truth, the stuff that our court system is based on. I know Mr. Rose can't back up his stories with proof. I can!
* * * * * * * *
It's time for him to take some responsibility for his actions and if need be, get some professional help along the way before he has nothing left.
When shown Janszen's letter during his deposition, Rose's first comment about it was, "We felt that to be kind of amusing, the stuff he said in there." Rose's attorney, Robert Pitcairn, then interjected that he did not find anything in Janszen's letter amusing. When asked what he found amusing in the letter, Rose responded that he found amusing such things as Janszen's statements in the letter that he, Janszen, "spent hundreds of hours working" in Rose's house; that Janszen had built a play area; and that Rose had borrowed money from Janszen.
The response to Janszen's letter was written by Katz's partner, Robert Pitcairn, to Janszen's attorney, Merlyn Shiverdecker. Pitcairn requested specifics about "the alleged loan, the purpose of the loan, and the amount [Janszen] believes is owed." Pitcairn promised Shiverdecker that if provided the "particulars of the transaction" he would "analyze it" and respond "promptly."
Janszen's attorney Shiverdecker replied to Robert Pitcairn by letter on March 2, 1989, requesting Pete Rose to pay Janszen the balance due him of $33,850 "which Paul paid to others on Pete's behalf and at Pete's direction in May and June of 1987." Shiverdecker added that "[t]he details of these expenditures are obviously as well known to Pete as they are to Paul." Shiverdecker asked to be advised of Rose's position at Pitcairn's earliest convenience. Janszen does not believe that Pitcairn ever responded to this letter.
Rose testified that the assertion that Janszen paid $33,000 on Rose's behalf, for which Rose is responsible, is "ridiculous" and Janszen was "dreaming." Rose went on to recite various debts which he claimed Janszen owed to him: $10,000 for the March 1988 check which Rose claimed was a loan to Janszen; $5,000 for a check which he says Janszen gave him at the end of 1988 for autographing baseballs and bats, which check Rose said bounced; and $25,000 for signing other baseballs and pictures.
Janszen stated that in 1988 it became clear that Rose would not pay him anything other than the March 1988 check for $10,000. Therefore, Janszen tried to minimize his losses by getting Rose to autograph as many baseball bats, balls, and other items as possible which Janszen planned to sell through his memorabilia business. Janszen has never received a demand to repay the $10,000 he received in March 1988, which Rose testified was a loan.
Rose's testimony that he does not owe Janszen any money is contradicted by Mike Bertolini in his telephone conversation with Paul Janszen of April 4, 1988. In the conversation Bertolini acknowledges Rose's debt and asks whether Rose has paid any of it:
JANSZEN: Did you ever get settled up with Pete?
BERTOLINI: About what?
JANSZEN: The money?
BERTOLINI: Fuck'n, we're working it out and shit, I don't know, the fuck. Did you ever?
JANSZEN: He still owes me about 12 grand.
BERTOLINI: So, he paid you about 3?
JANSZEN: Huh?
BERTOLINI: How much, did he pay you anything yet?
JANSZEN: No, well that's all that, what he did was he signed a bunch of autographs for me.
BERTOLINI: I hear you.
JANSZEN: And, you know, plus he wrote some checks that I had cashed that I had sent up to the guy.
BERTOLINI: Yeah.
JANSZEN: So, he's into me for about anywhere from, I don't know, once you figure out all the autograph stuff, he probably owes me about, anywhere from like 10-12,000.
BERTOLINI: Yeah, I hear you.
Rose testified that with regard to the entire investigation, "The whole thing started with Paul Janszen." Rose said that Janszen "sort of resented the fact that I didn't want to hang around with him anymore after I found out he was in drugs." Rose said that, "People have a tendency to say things they really don't -- that really aren't true when their ass is on the chopping block." Rose said that Janszen is trying to "blackmail" him and ruin his name in Cincinnati.
Rose said we should talk to Charles Sotto and Charlotte Jacobs, who can provide more information about Janszen in this regard. Sotto was interviewed and stated he had no knowledge of sports betting by Pete Rose. Regarding Janszen, Sotto told us that Janszen had told him of his visit to Reuven Katz; that Janszen needed money to pay an attorney; and that Janszen had cooperated with the FBI. Jacobs was interviewed, and she confirmed that Janszen called her and was very upset about Danita Marcum being kicked out of Rose's house. Jacobs had no knowledge of Pete Rose's betting activities.
Rose summed up his opinion regarding people who have said he bet on baseball with the following comment:
Those guys could have a quintet in the last three months. Because they're all singing. They're all singing a lot. They have to sing, or they'll be in Sing-Sing.
Rose added that "I'm guilty of one thing in this whole mess, and that's I was a horse shit selector of friends."
On March 21, 1989, Mark Stowe, the Assistant Clubhouse Manager of the Reds, told the investigators that he is acquainted with Paul Janszen and Danita Marcum and last saw them when they had lunch together during the summer of 1988. Stowe stated that during the lunch, Janszen said that Rose owed him money and that Rose bet on baseball. Stowe also stated that in the spring of 1989, when Pete Rose returned from his meeting at the Commissioner's office, Rose told Stowe that Janszen was saying Rose owed him money, when it was Janszen's "bookie" who owed money to Janszen. Rose told Stowe that he was betting through Janszen, and when Rose won, the "bookie" would not pay Janszen. Rose told Stowe that if it were Rose's "bookie" it would be different, but since it was not his "bookie," he does not owe Janszen anything. Rose also said that Janszen was claiming that Rose bet on baseball, but that he, Rose, did not.
Rose's admission to the Reds Assistant Clubhouse Manager in March 1989 that he was indeed placing bets with Paul Janszen contradicts Rose's repeated assertions in his deposition that he never bet with Janszen and was not aware of any betting by Janszen.
End of Section
In the next post we discuss :
Section III. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION, F. OTHER SUBJECTS COVERED IN PETE ROSE'S DEPOSITION