Chapter 7

Image Repair in Sports

Sports are a very important sector of the economy. In 2022, sports in the
United States generated over $43 billion in revenue (“Sports Franchises”
2022). Worldwide, sports revenue reached over $707 billion (Statista 2022).
Not surprisingly, threats to image arise frequently in this arena. Research
has examined image repair in sports since Kruse (1981) discussed apolo-
gia in team sport. Studies have investigated image repair from individual
athletes (e.g., Benoit 2013 on Tiger Woods; Benoit and Hanczor 1984 on
Tonya Harding; Brazeal 2008 on Terrell Owens; Brown, Dickhuas, and
Long 2012 on LeBron James; Glantz 2009 on Floyd Landis; Nelson 1984
on Billie Jean King; or Wen, Yu, and Benoit 2009 on Chien-Ming Wang).
Other research has studied image repair by sport teams (e.g., Benoit 2015
on the New Orleans Saints; Bruce and Tinik 2008 on Rugby league; and
Fortunato 2008 and Len-Rios 2010 on the Duke University lacrosse team).
Blaney, Lippert, and Smith (2013) edited a book on image repair in sport.
This chapter will look at image repair messages from three athletes. Pete
Rose was banned from the Baseball Hall of Fame for betting on baseball.
Another baseball player, Alex Rodriguez, was suspended for a year for
his use of performance-enhancing drugs. Basketball star Kobe Bryant
was accused of rape. Their image repair messages will be examined in
this chapter.

Pete Rose’s Major League Baseball Betting Scandal

Pete Rose is a towering figure in the sport of Major League Baseball (MLB).
He is best known for his time with the Cincinnati Reds, but he also played

99
100 | Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies

ball for the Philadelphia Phillies and the Montreal Expos (“Pete Rose”
2022). He served as a manager for the Cincinnati Reds for four seasons.
Rose’s MLB career is clearly outstanding: “Rose was a switch hitter and
is the all-time MLB leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats
(14,053), singles (3,215), and outs (10,328). He won three World Series,
three batting titles, one Most Valuable Player Award, two Gold Gloves,
and the Rookie of the Year Award. Rose made 17 All-Star appearances
at an unequaled five positions (second baseman, left fielder, right fielder,
third baseman, and first baseman)” (“Pete Rose” 2022). Ordinarily, an
MLB player with such an impressive resume would be a shoo-in for the
Baseball Hall of Fame.
Unfortunately, Rose’s Achilles heel was a serious gambling problem.
Allegations began to surface in the late eighties that Rose had bet on base-
ball games. On February 20, 1989, he was interviewed by Peter Ueberroth,
Commissioner of Baseball, and Bart Giamatti, National League President.
Rose admitted he “had bet on football, basketball, and horse racing, but
he vehemently denied the allegations of betting on baseball” (“Pete Rose”
2022). These accusations arose nationally in the next month: “Sports
Illustrated, in its issue dated March 27, 1989, was the first publication to
provide detail on what deep trouble Pete Rose was in” (Sokolove 2006,
254). It is clear that Rose had a gambling problem; many suspected that
he not only bet on football, basketball, and horse racing, but also wagered
on his own sport, baseball.
On February 23, MLB Commissioner Peter Ueberroth authorized an
investigation into allegations that Pete Rose bet on baseball games. The
“Dowd Report” was submitted to new Commissioner Bart Giamatti on
May 9 (Giamatti succeeded Ueberroth as Commissioner on April 1). The
report concluded that, despite his denial, “Pete Rose bet on baseball, and
in particular, on games of the Cincinnati Reds Baseball Club, during the
1985, 1986, and 1987 seasons” (Dowd et al., 1989). For example, evidence
indicated that in May, June, and July of 1987, Rose bet “2,00 per game
on baseball, including Reds games” (Dowd et al. 1989); Rose eventually
confirmed that “these reports were fairly accurate” (2004, 158). Rose usu-
ally had other people place his bets for him to try to hide his gambling.
Sokolove reported that bookmaker Ron Peters said, “Rose was betting as
much as $30,000 a day in the summer of 1987” (226). Little doubt exists
that Pete Rose gambled regularly, that some of his wagers frequently
concerned baseball games, and that he regularly bet on his own team.
 Image Repair in Sports | 101

Betting on this sport was a particular problem for a professional

baseball player. Major League Baseball Rule 21 declared, “Any player,
umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum
whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the better
has a duty to perform shall be permanently ineligible” (Macramalla 2015)
for the Hall of Fame. This rule was adopted after the “Black Sox” scandal
in which players for the Chicago White Socks were accused of accepting
money from gamblers to deliberately lose the 1919 World Series (Mac-
ramalla 2015). MLB had been deeply tarnished by the Black Sox scandal
and Rule 21 was adopted in an attempt to refurbish its image.
The ban on MLB players betting on the game embodied in Rule 21
is important so that fans may be able to trust that the outcomes of games
are honest. The Dowd Report explained that this prohibition is important
for several reasons: “Betting on baseball by a participant of the game is
corrupt because it erodes and destroys the integrity of the game of base-
ball. Betting also exposes the game to the influences of forces who seek to
control the game to their own ends. Betting on one’s own team gives rise to
the ultimate conflict of interest in which the individual player/better places
his personal financial interest above the interests of the team” (2015). MLB
Rule 21 is an important protection for the reputation of the sport. Even if
a player did not, in fact, bet against his team or allow inside knowledge to
influence when or how much he bet, public knowledge of a player’s bets
would cause people to question the integrity of the sport. Sokolove explained
that gambling “calls into question the integrity of the competition, our faith
that the winner will be determined by the best efforts of each player on the
field” (Sokolove, 2006, 3). Rule 21 is an important aspect of this institution.
Rose cannot be excused because he did not know about Rule 21. As
Macramalla observed, “It’s not possible for a player to be unaware of Rule
21. It’s everywhere. It’s posted in the clubhouse. . . . Every player every year
acknowledges the rule in writing” (2015). Rose himself noted, “Baseball
has a hard-and-fast punishment for breaking Rule #21. It’s nailed to the
clubhouse door at every ballpark in the country: ‘any player, umpire, or
club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon
any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform
shall be declared permanently ineligible’ ” (2004, 148, emphasis original).
Rose knew betting on baseball was a violation of MLB rules, but still he
gambled regularly. By placing bets on baseball, he was also gambling on
his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
102 | Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies

Pete Rose’s Image Repair on the Gambling Scandal

Rose’s defense changed radically over time. Initially—and for many years
afterwards—he denied betting on baseball. Still, on August 24, 1989, after
the Dowd Report was issued, “Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent
place on baseball’s ineligible list. Rose accepted that there was a factual
reason for the ban” (“Pete Rose” 2022) despite his fervent denials. He did
not admit specifically here that he bet on baseball in this agreement with
Giamatti and MLB. He maintained the lie that he had not wagered on
his own team for over fourteen years (“Pete Rose Comes Clean” 2003).
On November 8, 1989, Rose appeared on The Phil Donahue Show. At the
beginning of the appearance, Phil Donahue read an opening statement
prepared by Rose in which he admitted to having a gambling disorder
(Rose 2004, 186; his reference to a “gambling disorder” was a brief nod to
defeasibility). This television appearance coincided with the release of his
1989 book Pete Rose: My Story. Peter Gammons, a sportswriter, disparaged
Rose’s admission, saying, “This is a man who admitted something in a
forum in which he can make money” (Sokolove, 2006, 8). Although he
confessed to gambling on sports on Donahue, Rose continued to deny that
he’d on his own sport: “I swear I didn’t bet on baseball” (Stewart 1989).
In 2004 he published My Prison Without Bars to defend his rep-
utation. He also admitted betting on his own team in a 2007 ESPN
interview: “I bet on my team every night” (ESPN 2007). This concession
is an absolute admission of the fact that he lied about this allegation for
years. This analysis examines his book of self-defense, My Prison Without
Bars. Six strategies were identified in this image repair effort, and each
will be analyzed in turn.
Bolstering. Rose attempted to bolster his image in several ways. He
explained that “I didn’t drink, smoke, or use drugs” (2004, 185). This state-
ment lists three kinds of misdeeds he did not perform. He provided other
support for his character. “President Jimmy Carter wrote a beautiful letter
in USA Today, urging the commissioner to consider my reinstatement.”
The president characterized Rose as a “remarkable player” and “one of the
greatest players of all time. Few players ever made greater use of their
natural talents or brought more enthusiasm to the game” (270). Carter also
mentioned “Rose’s extraordinary spirit and determination.” Furthermore,
Rose noted that most Americans wanted him to be admitted to the Baseball
Hall of Fame: “A 1994 article in Sports Illustrated reported a telephone poll
of Americans in which 97% of respondents said that Pete Rose should be
 Image Repair in Sports | 103

in the Hall of Fame” (Rose 2004, 271). This image repair message pointed
to several praiseworthy aspects of this former baseball player.
Attack Accuser. In his book, Rose sharply criticized the Dowd Report.
He wrote, “Within minutes of reading the report, my lawyers found what
they called ‘outrageous examples of inappropriate and biased conclusions,
inaccuracies, half-truths, slander, and hear-say evidence.’ In short, the report
had more . . . holes than Swiss cheese” (164). This characterization of the
Dowd Report was savage. In an April 6, 1990, interview in USA Week-
end, Rose “questioned the evenhandedness of baseball’s probe” (Sokolove
2006, 185), reinforcing the allegation that the Dowd Report was biased.
Rose also ravaged the primary author of the report, declaring that Dowd
“claimed the testimony of Peters and Janszen had been ‘voluntary and
forthright.’ Dowd said that neither of them ‘has anything to gain for his
voluntary act of cooperation with this investigation.’ Nothing to gain, my
ass! Both Peters and Janszen cut deals to get a lighter sentence” (165). If
this report was founded on flawed sources of information, Rose implied,
it might well be wrong in its conclusions. These excerpts illustrate the use
of attack accuser in this image repair message.
Deflect Attention. Rose’s book pointed to other celebrities who had
committed offensive actions in their personal lives. This approach appears
to be an effort to distract the audience, to shift their attention away from
Rose’s own misdeeds.

A lot of famous folks were involved in “questionable” activities.

Athletes, entertainers, and politicians have all tried to keep
their deep, dark secrets from leaking to the press for fear of
losing the respect of an admiring public. Elvis, Rock Hudson,
and John Belushi were just a few who didn’t want their private
lives revealed even though they had no intention of actually
giving up their private passions. As the rumor goes, Prohibition
didn’t stop Joe Kennedy Sr. from hustling moonshine across
the country. (124)

This passage referred to anonymous “athletes, entertainers, and politicians”

who had committed misdeeds; he also singled out four individuals—Elvis
Presley, Rock Hudson, John Belushi, and Joe Kennedy—for his audience
to think about. Similarly, Rose recalled that “my Uncle Buddy used to tell
stories about the folks who hung out in the Speakeasies in New York and
Chicago . . . men like [Ty] Cobb, [Tris] Speaker, and [Babe] Ruth . . . men
104 | Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies

like Jack Dempsey, Red Grange, Jim Thorpe, and Damon Runyon” (125).
So Rose also pointed to seven sports figures, including baseball, football,
and boxing stars. You can almost hear Rose say, “What about them?”
Minimization. Rose tried to minimize the offensiveness of his actions
in three ways. First, he declared that “no one got hurt but me” (Sokolove
2006, 285). This utterance attempted to minimize the number of victims
of his offensive action.
He also worked to minimize the size of his offense. He noted, “One
of my friends from the entertainment business routinely bet $50,000 per
game on as many as 10 games per weekend—half a million dollars! He
bet even more at the race track. . . . Nobody ever suggested that he had
a gambling ‘problem’ ” (125). In comparison to this person, Rose clearly
hoped that his bets might appear relatively small to some in his audience.
Similarly, he downplayed the frequency of his bets: “Sometimes I went
for months at a time without gambling at all” (185). So this image repair
message attempted to minimize the frequency and magnitude of his betting.
Furthermore, Rose contrasted his gambling with the misdeeds of
others: “Yes, I was a hard-core gambler. But I didn’t scheme and manipulate.
I wasn’t an asshole, like other guys. I didn’t sell drugs—like Gio. I didn’t
threaten to kill someone’s wife and kids—like Janszen. I didn’t squeal to
save my own ass—like Peters” (170). The argument here is that his own
misdeed was less offensive than other actions of others (Tommy Giogiosa,
Paul Janszen, and Ron Peters, who allegedly placed bets for Rose) to which
he alluded. He chose to point to actions of other individuals involved in
his gambling to make this point.
Differentiation. Rose briefly employed differentiation in his image
repair effort. He stated, “I knew I broke the letter of the law. But I didn’t
think that I broke the ‘spirit’ of the law, which was designed to prevent
corruption” (147). This passage argued that he should not be blamed for
gambling because he was not corrupt in his betting.
Mortification. This strategy, apology, is not an element of Rose’s image
repair. In fact, he wrote, “I’m sure that I’m supposed to act all sorry or
sad or guilty now that I’ve accepted that I’ve done something wrong. But
you see, I’m just not built that way” (320). My friend (and scholar) Dale
Hample has referred to Rose’s approach to his gambling scandal as the
“noticeably absent apology.” Rose should have confessed and apologized,
but apparently that is not the kind of person he is. He did not express
regret for his wrongdoing.
 Image Repair in Sports | 105

Evaluation. Rose’s defense made use of bolstering, attack accuser,

deflect attention, minimization, differentiation, and a brief allusion to
defeasibility. Each defense will be evaluated in turn in this section. Notice
that his admission that he made daily wagers on baseball means that he
had lied for over fourteen years about his gambling on his sport.
The attempt at bolstering was nice but does not outweigh the
potential harm of violating Rule 21. The idea that he didn’t drink, smoke
cigarettes, or use drugs was weak. Surely he could have listed hundreds if
not thousands of other bad things that he had not done; not committing
murder hardly exonerates committing grand theft. The fact that others
(President Carter, people who responded to telephone polls) thought he
belonged in the Hall of Fame is another weak argument. Sokolove (2006,
3) argued that “people who dismiss Rose’s baseball wagers by arguing that,
well, everybody gambles . . . miss the point. Many Americans give up
certain rights in order to work in a particular career or workplace. Pilots
can’t drink before they fly. Reporters can’t give money to candidates. And
ballplayers can’t wager.” Rose was without doubt an outstanding baseball
player. However, he knowingly violated one of the most important rules
governing this sport.
Discord lurks in his use of bolstering. He declared that he could go
for months without placing a bet. This statement seems at odds with his
concession that he was a “hard-core gambler.” And, as in his argument
that he refrained from other misdeeds, the idea that he did not place bets
every day does not excuse the fact that he bet on baseball, on his own
team, and lied about it for years.
Attack accuser was moot as a defense of Rose’s misdeeds. Rose
eventually admitted betting on baseball every night, so any possible
weaknesses in the Dowd Report are completely irrelevant. The ultimate
conclusion reached in this report was correct by his own admission, so
alleged weaknesses of sources or biases of the primary author do not
undermine the accusation.
Rose also employed the strategy of deflect attention. However,
although his examples of celebrities with flaws is a sad list indeed, these
offenses are not comparable. None of these people were a professional
baseball player who violated Rule 21. Furthermore, taken to its logical
conclusion, deflect attention means that everyone should be forgiven
except the single worst person in the world (everyone else could point
to someone worse than themselves).
106 | Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies

A fourth strategy used in Rose’s defense was minimization. He

asserted that no one was harmed but him. This assertion is questionable.
Rule 21 was adopted in order to protect baseball’s reputation; Rose certainly
put MLB’s image at risk, along with everyone connected with the sport.
His friends, family, and fans may have disagreed with this assertion that
the harm from his actions affected only Rose. The idea that others had
wagered more than he had is a very weak argument. Would he have us
think that a person who murdered one victim should be forgiven because
other killers had multiple victims? Similarly his laundry list of bad actions
committed by others (Gio, Janszen, or Peters) does not absolve Rose of
his own misdeeds.
His use of differentiation (he broke the letter but not the spirit of the
rule) was also weak. Rule 21 was about avoiding perceptions of corruption
in baseball. What he thought he was doing (not wagering corruptly) is
irrelevant to the perceptions of fans that could have been created by his
daily bets on baseball.
His attempt to invoke defeasibility by referring to his “gambling
disorder” was not very effective. He did not develop this aspect of his
defense; he could have provided medical evidence to support this claim,
but he did not do so.
As noted above, Rose should have expressed remorse and employed
the strategy of mortification. He failed to do so. This glaring omission
undermines his defense.
Pete Rose was a very impressive baseball player. Based on his per-
formance on the field, he deserved to be inducted into the Baseball Hall
of Fame. Unfortunately, Rose had an addiction to gambling. Not satisfied
with betting on football, basketball, and horse racing, he broke MLB Rule
21, which prohibiting gambling on baseball. He lied about his misdeeds for
over fourteen years. Then he wrote a book trying to defend his reputation,
employing bolstering, attack accuser, deflect attention, minimization, and
differentiation. Rose’s repeated violation of Rule 21 disqualified him from
induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame. He clearly should have apologized
for his repeated violations of the prohibition against betting on baseball.
It is not clear that employing mortification would have gotten Rose into
the Hall of Fame, but apologizing was clearly the right thing for Rose to
do. Failure to apologize—especially after denying that he broke Rule 21
for over fourteen years—is a strong indication that Rose felt no remorse
for his betting “every night” on his own sport and his own team.
 Image Repair in Sports | 107

Alex Rodriguez’s Suspension from Major League Baseball

Alex Rodriguez—also known as his nickname, A-Rod—received a 162-

game suspension for using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Sanchez
(2014) noted that this was “the most severe punishment in baseball his-
tory for doping.” This suspension meant that Rodriguez missed the entire
2014 baseball season. Van Dijk (2008) reminds us of the importance of
context in communication. This section examines Rodriguez’s apology in
the context of his prior actions and statements.
His suspension arose after the Miami New Times reported on its
investigation of a health clinic called Biogenesis having supplied “human
growth hormone and other performance-enhancing drugs” to professional
baseball players. Inspection of Biogenesis records revealed the names of
Alex Rodriguez and other players (Solomon 2013). Rodriguez met these
accusations with simple denial: “I did not use performance enhancing
substances” (Nightengale 2014). Rodriguez also attacked his accusers: “The
deck has been stacked against me from day one.” He said the suspen-
sion “relies on testimony and documents . . . [that are] false and wholly
unreliable.” He called he investigation “corrupt,” saying that it relied on
“hearsay testimony of a criminal whose own records demonstrate that he
dealt drugs to minors” (Nightengale 2014). Sanchez (2014) reported that
Rodriguez was the only one of fourteen suspended players who appealed
his suspension. So Rodriguez denied the accusation that he had used PEDs,
viciously attacked his accusers, and appealed the suspension in court.
Against this backdrop, Rodriguez issued an apology in 2015. He told
fans, “I take full responsibility for the mistakes that led to my suspension
for the 2014 season and that my actions made the situation worse that
than it needed to be” (2015). Note that a bit of defeasibility creeps into
his apology as he labels his actions as “mistakes.” Rodriguez’s apology was
unlikely to be persuasive or sound sincere, given his earlier statements
and actions. This image repair effort was ineffective.

Kobe Bryant’s Image Repair on Rape Accusations

Professional basketball player Kobe Bryant checked into the Lodge and
Spa at Cordillera in Edwards, Colorado, on June 30, 2003. On July 1, he
was accused of raping a nineteen-year-old woman in his room, and police
108 | Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies

arrested him on July 18 (“Kobe Bryant” 2023). This case was dropped after
his accuser refused to testify in criminal court. She filed a civil suit and
settled out of court with Bryant. He issued an apology. This case is inter-
esting because it illustrates the importance of perceptions in image repair.
It is important to realize that this analysis is focused on his message, not
on Bryant himself. That is, we cannot know his state of mind and whether
we should believe him. But we can still analyze the message he produced.
Bryant did not deny that he had a sexual encounter with his accuser.
However, he used a form of differentiation, arguing that he believed that
she consented to having sex with him: “I truly believe this encounter
between us was consensual” (Zinn 2016). This defense could easily have
turned into an instance of attack accuser; he could have alleged that she
was only trying to get money from him. However, he did not do so.
Instead, he acknowledged that she perceived the encounter differently from
him: “I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident
the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her
attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she
feels that she did not consent to this encounter” (Zinn 2016). In fact, he
explicitly apologized to his accuser: “I want to apologize directly to the
young woman involved in this incident. I want to apologize to her for
my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the
past year. Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me person-
ally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure. I also want to
apologize to her parents and family members” (Zinn 2016). This utterance
acknowledges her suffering and explicitly apologizes to her; it is a clear
example of mortification.
We cannot tell what Bryant believed at the time he had sex with his
accuser. Perhaps his apology was heartfelt and honest, or perhaps he was
cynical and felt entitled to whatever he wanted. The point here is not to
evaluate Bryant but to understand his message. This image repair effort
recognizes that people at times have quite different perceptions about the
same person or event. For example, a public opinion poll from October
2022 reported that 80 percent of Democrats and Republicans believe the
other party “will destroy America” (Doherty 2022). Differentiation is an
attempt to exploit different perceptions to redefine an act to make it appear
less offensive. If this apology was sincere, it managed to accomplish two
key goals: denying that Bryant committed rape while acknowledging the
victim’s suffering and apologizing for the trauma she felt.
 Image Repair in Sports | 109

Conclusion and Implications

Pete Rose published My Prison without Bars in an attempt to rehabilitate

his reputation. Many of his arguments were very weak (e.g., there are many
bad things—such as drinking, smoking cigarettes, or using drugs—I haven’t
done; others have done very bad things). One of the worst elements of
his defense was the fact that he had lied for years about gambling on his
team. A sincere apology issued as soon as the accusations arose would
have strengthened his defense. Alex Rodriguez used mortification; however,
his apology likely sounded insincere because he had strenuously denied
wrongdoing and contested his suspension. Kobe Bryant apologized to his
accuser. Interestingly, he argued that he and she had different understand-
ings about consent: he thought (he said) that their sex was consensual,
but she did not.