OTL Does It's Job And Nobody Likes It, Gambling Addiction Edition, Part Two: The End For Pete Rose (???)

I was going to get to this a while back, and just haven't been able to do so because some of my strong opinions on the subject weren't going to meet well with a number of readers (and I know that in advance).

I've been having some of my best conversations with one of them in the last eight days, since Outside the Lines dropped their first of the two bombs:  A 30 year-old notebook which (if right) proves Pete Rose bet on the Reds as a player in 1986, and extensively.

John Dowd, whose report aided in having Rose banned a couple years later, claims this is the final straw in him ever getting reinstated.

And yes, if this is proper, Rose would've lied to the media for 25 years about betting as a player (even to Michael Kay in April of 2015 on ESPN New York), on top of his 15 lying to the media about betting on baseball.

The notebook shows that he bet, by June, on at least 22 days on the Reds.  There is NO evidence in the notebook saying he bet against the Reds...

But there is one clear thing:

The speculation has to stop and stop now.

Did Pete Rose bet against the Reds or not?

I have my answer, but it's as good as John Dowd's on the subject (he thinks Rose has).

MLB has to get to the bottom of the entire mess, and, frankly, call all relevant parties into the office and get a Final Answer.  (And preferably before the All-Star Game in Cincinnati, in which it is presently believed Rose might be allowed to appear as one of the hallmark players of the Reds.  This, on top of at least a discussed reinstatement situation which could be talked about after the All-Star break.)

Does anybody have evidence indicating Rose bet against the Reds at any point while he was involved with baseball?  Speak now or forever hold your peace.

What did he say to the Commissioner (Bart Giamatti) during the questioning?  Did he lie to Giamatti?  And why (as Brian Tuohy asserts) did MLB destroy the notes of the hearing?

One thing which speaks very well in Rose's favor regarding never betting against the Reds is that Giamatti did agree to reconsider the life ban after a certain time -- something which never would've happened if Giamatti saw any evidence Rose bet against the Reds at any time.

One of the other things which makes both this and Mickelson's situations sticky is that both would be guilty of Federal crimes if Rose were found to bet against he Reds or Mickelson was part of laundering money.  That's what makes these both stories to watch.

And then, as I said in the other post, there is the "Dan Rather" situation:  What if ESPN, desperate to save their masters in the NFL from anyone who might have an eye on them (which OTL would qualify), is planting these stories to shit-can OTL and get all investigative reporting out of their network before THEY or the NFL become the next targets, and justifiably so?

But this story has to stop.  There's enough smoke.  Either clear the air or admit there's a fire -- one or the other.