Hawk Harrelson goes after another ump but doesn’t get in trouble for it

44 Comments

In late May, White Sox announcer Hawk Harrelson was called on the carpet by Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf and by Bud Selig himself after Harrelson exploded on the air at umpire Mark Wegner, calling one of his calls “absolutely brutal,” “unbelievable” and accusing Wegner of not knowing anything about the game of baseball.

Getting called on the carpet usually implies a promise not to do whatever bad thing you did again. But Harrelson did it again on Saturday, ranting about umpire Lance Barrett in the Mariners-Sox game. Among his choice cuts, via ESPN Chicago:

• “I’ll tell you this is absolutely ridiculous. This is absolutely ridiculous.”

• “Lance Barrett has been absolutely brutal. Brutal.”

• “Lance Barrett has just stunk the joint up is all he’s done. That’s all he’s done.”

• “He’s terrible.”

• “This is one of those games where the film is going back to the American League office to show how bad he is.”

• “Everything that (Mariners pitcher) Blake Beavan has thrown up there that (catcher Miguel) Olivo has caught has been a strike. If he caught it, it was a strike. He’s got two different strike zones. He’s got a two-foot for Beavan, and he’s got a 10-inch for the White Sox. What does that tell you?”

• “This might be as bad as a two innings as I’ve ever seen from a guy behind the plate or 2 1/3 (innings.) So he’s bad, so he throws out our catcher and our manager because he’s brutal.”

If anything I think these comments were worse, at least in volume if not vitriol, than the stuff he said about Wegner. But Hawk is lucky. According to Scott Powers of ESPN Chicago, neither the White Sox nor Major League Baseball are going to do anything about it. Which is fine. I have a bit of a problem with teams or the league going after announcers for the things they say because that’s kind of chilling in my view.

But really, if you’re gonna make a point to act like you’re disciplining someone over something in one case, don’t you sorta need to keep that up in order to maintain credibility? Or did baseball maybe realize that it overstepped its bounds in the first instance?

Pete Rose dismisses his defamation lawsuit against John Dowd

Getty Images
4 Comments

Last year Pete Rose field a defamation lawsuit against attorney John Dowd after Dowd gave a radio interview in which he said that Rose had sexual relations with underage girls that amounted to “statutory rape, every time.” Today Rose dismissed the suit.

In a statement issued by Rose’s lawyer and Dowd’s lawyer, the parties say they agreed “based on mutual consideration, to the dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Rose’s lawsuit against Mr. Dowd.” They say they can’t comment further.

Dowd, of course, is the man who conducted the investigation into Rose’s gambling which resulted in the Hit King being placed on baseball’s permanently ineligible list back in 1989. The two have sparred through the media sporadically over the years, with Rose disputing Dowd’s findings despite agreeing to his ban back in 1989. Rose has changed his story about his gambling many times, usually when he had an opportunity to either make money off of it, like when he wrote his autobiography, or when he sought, unsuccessfully, to be reinstated to baseball. Dowd has stood by his report ever since it was released.

In the wake of Dowd’s radio comments in 2015, a woman came forward to say that she and Rose had a sexual relationship when she was under the age of 16, seemingly confirming Dowd’s assertion and forming the basis for a strong defense of Rose’s claims (truth is a total defense to a defamation claim). They seem now, however, to have buried the hatchet. Or at least buried the litigation.

That leaves Dowd more free time to defend his latest client, President Trump. And Rose more time to do whatever it is Pete Rose does with his time.