Posted by tecwrg on 7/25/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):It's been a long time since I've put any real thought into the Pete Rose case, but as I remember there was never any evidence that he made any moves as manager that would indicate that he was trying to lose any particular game, nor was there ever any betting slips that showed that he did in fact bet against the Reds to lose any particular games.
Is that correct?
Posted by akira_hokuto on 7/25/2013 7:43:00 PM (view original):Do I think he's above it? Hell no. I think his overall behavior attests to that. To be clear I personally have little doubt that if he had a big bet down he'd manage differently, my only point was that his managing wasn't the only difference between '89 and '90.
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/25/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):IIRC, he claims he bet on every Reds game, and there are documents that show he bet on nearly every game. What kind of documents, I'm not sure. Nobody has ever claimed he bet against his own team.
Posted by antoncresten on 7/25/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):RE-INSTATE PETER H. ROSE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111
RE-INSTATE PETER H. ROSE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111
Posted by antoncresten on 7/25/2013 7:47:00 PM (view original):PETE ROSE HATED TO LOSE AT ANYTHING. HE WOULD STOMP ON HIS GRANDMA TO BEAT HER AT TIDDLYWINKS.
WITH NO MONEY ON THE LINE.
INDUCT HIM NOW!
BOYCOTT COOPERSTOWN UNTIL THEN!
© 1999- WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.