ccouch (Chad)
Member
- Aug 8, 2008
- 444
- 6
chashawk said:Rose bet ON the Reds.
Of all of the arguments often raised in defense of Pete Rose, this one is among the most mind-bogglingly absurd.
Rose bet on the Reds, but he didn't bet every game they played. That immediately opens up the possibility that he would manage differently in games in which he had money riding on the outcome. Who is to say that he wouldn't manage his bullpen differently when there was money on the line, leaving certain pitchers unavailable the next night (when Rose wouldn't place a bet)? Just because he was betting on his team to win doesn't mean that his betting habits wouldn't potentially manipulate the outcome of games that he didn't have action on.
And what kind of message do you think he was sending to his bookies and other gambing cohorts on nights he wasn't betting on the Reds??