If Ron Oester was deceived, it is deplorable. If he was misled, it is disturbing. If he was simply naive, it is merely regrettable.

        The level of outrage appropriate to the Cincinnati Reds' managerial fiasco depends on which story you believe.

        Oester says he was lied to by Reds General Manager Jim Bowden, and lost the job largely through the GM's duplicity. Bowden disputes Oester's account, and claims to have been offering only friendly advice. Chief Operating Officer John Allen, the other actor in this sad play, remains publicly mute.

        If I'm Reds owner Carl Lindner, I need to get to the bottom of this. I need to call all of the characters onto the carpet and look into their eyes as I listen to their stories. If the whole thing was a huge misunderstanding, Reds fans need to know. If Oester has been mistreated — even accidently — amends should be made before a suit gets filed. If he is the victim of Machiavellian mendacity, heads should roll.

        This has nothing to do with whether Oester was the best man for the job. Bob Boone's credentials are arguably more compelling, and his willingness to work cheap is a legitimate consideration for any business trying to make a buck.

        Yet any business that operates as the Reds do — trading on local loyalties, subsidized by tax dollars — courts catastrophe when it trifles with a hometown hero. However many games the Reds win in 2001 will not restore the credibility and respect they lost Friday morning.

        Ron Oester was raised a Reds fan, starred at Withrow High School and earned distinction playing second base at Cinergy Field. He has spent close to a quarter-century working his way through the Reds' organization, often accepting meager salaries as the price of apprenticeship.

        That said, Oester's long history with the club counts for nothing when it comes to offering him a contract. Salary figures should be determined by market forces, not sentiment. What the Reds owe any career employee is above-board bargaining — straight answers, stated risks, consistent clarity.

        An inflexible offer with a specific deadline should be characterized as such. If there was no room to negotiate,Oester should have been told that in explicit, unmistakeable terms — and only that.

        Without first-hand knowledge of what was said, it is difficult to determine whether Oester was misinformed or whether he misinterpreted what he was told. According to several accounts, Allen was unambiguous in presenting the club's offer. Bowden's behavior, meanwhile, is more open to interpretation. Anything's possible, but it's unlikely Oester invented the advice he attributes to Bowden: “Stick to your guns. We don't have anyone else.”

        If Bowden said this, even in an effort to be encouraging, he was at least partially responsible for Oester's confusion. The statement suggests give-and-take instead of take-it-or-leave-it. This was not at all the message Lindner and Allen wanted to convey.

        Inconsistency is a recurring problem with this club. Allen and Bowden continue to send out different signals about the elasticity of their budget, and if they happen to agree, Lindner overrules them and signs Barry Larkin.

        Instead of presenting a united front, like the Atlanta Braves or Procter & Gamble, the Reds are a franchise of factions. One club executive characterized the relationship between Allen and Bowden recently as “oil and water.” Similarly, Lindner's relationship with his partners has been strained since he committed $27 million to Larkin without consulting his fellow investors.

        Until the Reds can speak with one voice, their message will be muddled.

        E-mail: tsullivan@enquirer.com.