Skip to content

Wanna buy Pete Rose’s corked bat?

Feb 22, 2013, 10:00 AM EDT

Image (1) Rose.jpg for post 6592

Though long rumored, it was three years ago that it was confirmed that Pete Rose used a corked bat during his pursuit of Ty Cobb’s hit record in 1985. That bat is going up for auction if you’re interested. From the description:

This bat comes with the letter of authenticity from PSA/DNA, the actual X-ray showing the hole and foreign matter and a copy of the September 1985 Beckett Baseball Card Monthly clearly showing Pete holding this same bat. Pete has signed the cover in silver ink: “Pete Rose Veterans Stadium 7/4/85 – 7/7/85”.

Bidding starts on Monday. There’s a $2,500 minimum. I’m sure it will go for far more.

I touched on all of this three years ago when the bat’s existence came to light, but I still wonder why so many people who excoriate HGH users as cheaters don’t do the same for Rose and other bat corkers. I am aware of the studies which show that corking a bat likely doesn’t help a hitter and may actually be detrimental, but the same goes for taking HGH, which has been shown in multiple studies to confer no physical or athletic benefit to otherwise healthy athletes.

But HGH is against the rules and is therefore cheating, and this is why people care. So too is corking a bat, however. And we rarely treat these transgressions the same. Obviously Rose has other issues, but if those were gone, I’m sure the bat corking would not have impeded his path to the Hall of Fame.

  1. shaggylocks - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM

    Because, Craig, CHEATERS GRWRARARAWWARA *pause for foaming breath* RWARAAEWAEWEARRRAWAWRR!!! CHEATERS!!!!

    And corked bats are just a part of the long tradition of this game, man.

  2. wallio - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:10 AM

    I disagree. I think people hate corked bats just as much. Remember Sosa’s? He was crucified in the media for 2-3 weeks, and when he retired many analysts pointed to it as the beginning of his decline. People don’t care with Rose because we already know he’s a lowlife, and hes already banned.

    • plmathfoto - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM

      Couldn’t agree more. Also never really understood why people don’t rail on Rose more, he was always more committed to himself than winning, how can he justify trotting his 250 hitting no power butt out to first base when he’s managing the team and try to claim he’s putting the best team out there to win and sitting Driessen et al? Never understood why he wasn’t taken to task for that as well

    • philsieg - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM

      Really? You think the rivers of ink that have been spilled over PEDs would be the same over corked bats? That all the agony aunts of the chattering classes would have taken to their fainting couches with the vapors and a cool cloth for their perspiring brows over corked effin’ bats? You follow baseball on a different planet than the one I live on.

    • IdahoMariner - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM

      i only wish everyone dismissed pete rose as easily as you suggest. selfish, selfish player, cheater and an asshole. only has the hits record because he is a selfish ass who hung on so long. still don’t know what kind of pics he had on those owners/gms that they let him stay in the game well past his prime.
      but hey, no steroids, so once bud lets him back in, they will vote him in first ballot. steroids-obsessed freaks.

  3. beefytrout - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:34 AM

    And if you’re in Vegas, Rose will sign it for $5.

  4. danielponce - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM

    Will pete sign it like he did those baseballs? “Im sorry i cheated at baseball”

  5. zerohandicapper - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:47 AM

    Slow news day huh? There is a huge difference between equipment modifications and substances you take for your body. They are not even in the same ballpark, same league, or the same sport.
    For your next story, please go after the Neikros’, Drysdale, Perry, etc….
    How in the world do writers like this get hired? I honestly have no clue.

    • brazcubas - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM

      Yeah, there’s a huge difference from the cheater’s point of view, but from an outsider’s point of view cheating is cheating, and if you’re going to get apoplectic over PED’s, it stands to reason you should at least get similarly upset over all other types of cheating.

      Unless, of course, you oppose body modification or the use of drugs on philosophical or religious grounds.

    • alang3131982 - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM

      What is the actual difference? Cheating is cheating. Are the degrees of cheating? Is one brand of cheating worse than another. Does one brand of cheating result in improved outcomes than another? If you want to talk health, sure but that’s a personal choice really.

  6. gibbyfan - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM

    What’s most sad about many of the cases but certainly this one is that there was no need for any kind of cheating–People like Rose had the superstar ability–same for braun if allegations are true about him—maybe it woul dbe understandable for someone on the margin looking at either getting an edge of flipping hamburgers for a living–but most of these guys it would seem would have too much self respect –it’s like a varient of greed.

  7. joshtown81 - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM

    “I still wonder why so many people who excoriate HGH users as cheaters don’t do the same for Rose and other bat corkers.”

    Craig, to argue that Pete Rose HASN’T been excoriated for several reasons, such as gambling and corked bats, is ridiculous. He’s become a laughing stock literally because he cheated/lied/tried to profit from ill gotten means. Stop tying everything back to HGH and performance enhancers. This story should be about Rose’s bat, his fall from grace, everything that goes along with that.

    Up until your “I’m sure it’ll go for far more” line, all I was thinking about was how “man, Pete Rose really did help tarnish the game. I wonder if he’s selling the bat himself just to make some much needed money.” And then you went right into HGH. Again. It’s ok to let some stories stand on their own, without circling back to making a point about HGH.

  8. misterchainbluelightning - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM

    I am aware of the studies which show that corking a bat likely doesn’t help a hitter and may actually be detrimental.

    Likely? It’s just as “likely” that 2+2 is likely to equal 4.

    And HGH promotes and increases the synthesis of new protein tissues, such as in muscle recovery or repair. This is the way new muscle is built.

    If you think these studies you have found contradicts this absolute 100% fact, post them. I’d love to debate and destroy your statement of ….
    “HGH, which has been shown in multiple studies to confer no physical or athletic benefit to otherwise healthy athletes”

    I mean how ridiculous and misleading a statement can a obvious steroid apologist write these days, I have no doubt Craig would know.

    But Craig, why don’t you post you links to this “research” so we can all have a good laugh like I do when “truthers” posts their “research” about 9/11.

    I dare ya in all honesty, because I have a few hundred studies that will say the opposite.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM

      Please note the distinction between HGH use generically and HGH use by highly-trained athletes. For the former — and particularly for people with illness or growth issues — there is an effect. For the latter:

      “A recent Stanford University review of 31 clinical studies of hGH use among healthy,
      normally aging individuals found the only benefit to be a slight increase in muscle mass … Ironically, there is no credible scientific evidence that hGH substantively increases
      muscle strength or aerobic exercise capacity in normal individuals.”

      http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20080212150143.pdf

      “Results: We found no effect of the low or high dosages of GH on maximum oxygen uptake during exercise … Neither was there any effect on maximum achieved power output during exercise or on blood pressure, heart rate, or the electrocardiographic ST level at rest or during exercise. GH significantly increased total body weight (P = 0.028), an effect predominantly ascribed to fluid retention (increased extracellular water volume), whereas muscle mass (as indicated by intracellular water volume) did not change.”

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15784718

      I am familiar with one recent study contradicting this. It was funded by WADA, which has a vested financial interest in scare-mongering regarding PEDs and getting sports bodies to contract with it to administer their drug testing programs.

      • misterchainbluelightning - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:22 PM

        Did you serious post that clap trap from 2008?

        5 years is a LONG LONG time Craig in the scientific community.
        My God anything to push the agenda huh?

      • misterchainbluelightning - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:43 PM

        Craig, I sure do hope you ignorantly post this type of information to your own kid when they are around 14-16 years old. Be sure to tell him and his friends about how it’s no big deal. Because as usual you and your irresponsible trolling agenda fail to understand the problem. I guess you never went to school where kids a large % of male students were juicing. And we know how responsible 14-16 year olds are, but hey, no big deal. enlarged hearts, roid rages, deaths. None of it is a big deal, akin to corking a bat right?

        You’re dangerously ignorant from someone who’s words reaches so many people, you’re an idiot quick frankly, and a troll.

      • Craig Calcaterra - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM

        If they’ve been discredited, by all means, educate me.

        And you take my citation of these things as an endorsement of HGH? All of these studies note side effects, often serious ones. I in no way endorse this stuff. I’m merely disputing the ignorant, widely-held notion that someone can take HGH and it immediately turns them into a record-breaking superman power hitter.

      • cur68 - Feb 22, 2013 at 6:32 PM

        I just conducted a google scholar database search with the terms “Human growth hormone + muscle growth + performance enhancement”. I constrained the data from 2010 to now. 6,950 results. I then constrained down by the title containing “Human Growth Hormone”, the exact phrase “performance enhancement” and at least one of the words “muscle growth”. 519 returns

        The ones that deal with this issue specifically are pretty clear: no one’s found any evidence that HGH contributes to muscle growth and there is some evidence that it NEGATIVELY impacts endurance.

        There is SOME evidence that the hormone improves healing in the elderly, certain joint injury, and in burn victims.

        That’s it.

        Craig’s information is as good as anything newer.

  9. steelers88 - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

    No not really.

  10. godsmacked1 - Feb 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    Where’s Gaylord Perry when you need him?

  11. officialgame - Feb 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    Figure Rose would find a way to make a few bucks off of his corked bat. This is a man who sell his mother into the sex trade.

    • badintent - Feb 23, 2013 at 2:23 AM

      yes, his girlfriend is available for $500 a throw.Handcuffs are extra but Pete will sell his own from his arrest for $10K

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Alex Gordon, MVP candidate
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (4541)
  2. Y. Molina (2561)
  3. D. Ortiz (2559)
  4. J. Soler (2410)
  5. M. Cuddyer (2105)
  1. M. Machado (2003)
  2. Y. Darvish (1994)
  3. B. Colon (1986)
  4. R. Cano (1952)
  5. S. Doolittle (1881)