Bengals1 wrote:I thought Pete had come out long ago and admitted he'd bet while he was a Red. Was that just as a manager?
Jmble wrote:Bengals1 wrote:I thought Pete had come out long ago and admitted he'd bet while he was a Red. Was that just as a manager?
Yeah. He categorically denied betting on the Reds as a player. Only as a manager. So this is new information. I just don't feel like it changes anything. Just gives more ammo to the people who were already anti Pete Rose.
Jmble wrote:Of course he screwed up. Does anything that was found out today surprise anybody? Secondly, betting on the Reds as a manager is much worse than betting on the Reds as a player. Everyone agrees that there has never been any evidence that he bet against the Reds. As a manager, he may have left a pitcher in a little longer or held out a player for rest so they could play in a game he actually has money on, but as a player, betting on the Reds all he's going to do is play exactly the same way he always did.
I'm not saying it's right. I don't believe it's right. I just believe that today's findings shouldn't have any real bearings over how you feel about Pete Rose one way or the other.
All he is, is guilty of lying more than he already admitted to lying.
Dowd will always say case closed. Dowd and Selig will always be against Pete to the fullest amount possible to honor the late Bart Giamatti.
My feelings on Pete are the same today as they were yesterday. He should be in the Hall of Fame, but he should not be reinstated to a point that he can work in baseball again.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest