[Amazin69]

And, of course, there was the whole bit where Pete might have accepted the ban not cover up any game-fixing possibilities, but because his pal Bertolini had told John Dowd about…other things.

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."

Rose, of course, promptly sued Dowd for Defamation in the Pennsylvania courts, calling the allegation "entirely false in every respect."

Which, naturally, led to an Ohio woman coming forth in 2017.

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 acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with the woman in court documents made public Monday, but he said his information and belief was that it started when she was 16. He was 34, married and the father of two children in 1975, when he says he began having sex with the woman, referred to in the filing as "Jane Doe." Rose said he does not recall how long the relationship lasted.

The woman's account does not raise the prospect of a criminal charge for Rose, as it is well past Ohio's statute of limitations. She said they also had sex outside of Ohio when she was 16 or younger, but didn't specify the states, and Rose said their sexual relationship was confined to Ohio. In some states, such as Florida, the legal age of consent is 18.

So, yeah, even if you think merely gambling on your own team shouldn't be a bannable offense, and even if you claim there's no proof that Pete fixed games and so he shouldn't be denied the Hall (regardless of his voluntarily accepting the permanent ban, extending beyond death), there's still a pretty good case for the Hall denying Pete on "character" grounds, IMO.

(Rose did not win the defamation suit against Dowd, btw.)