- Thread starter
- #1
Redsfan1507
It is what it is
Pete Rose must have made an impression on John Dowd. Somehow, they just dredged up some betting slip dated 1986 that suggests Pete bet on the Reds as a player-manager...that somehow escaped showing up until now, just before new commish reviews Pete's request for reinstatement... Dowd was quoted as saying this "new evidence" should close the book on Pete...sounded happy about that.
I guess I'm missing the point- gambling at all as a player or manager is the same crime, and after all, Pete did admit to betting on baseball. I might agree if the slip was dated 2015, but 1986 ?
At any rate, I don't believe Pete was getting reinstated anyway. I have little doubt he bet on baseball, although I do not believe he bet on the Reds to lose (making it worse if he could have helped blow a game), and I think it is sad that virtually all evidence was produced from scumbag criminals looking to make a deal- the definition of a low credibility source... I do also think it's a shame this is all being dredged up again days before the Reds hosted All-Star game, and makes me wonder if the animosity is directed at more than just Rose, but the Reds too.
I understand why gambling brings a ban- it compromises the integrity of the game. I'm not convinced MLB's ignoring PED's didnt compromise the game as much or more, however...but of course, that implicates MLB, the commissioner, owners, etc. MLB has the luxury of being above reproach, and treating every PED issue-as a player only issue. I find it hard to swallow that PED users still get their name on the HOF ballot, and Rose can't. Although the two aren't related, the both question integrity, and financial reprocussions of that. MLB didnt make any money on gambling, but it's obvious that PED's helped increase MLB revenue...that doesn't exactly bolster my confidence in MLB's integrity.
I guess I'm missing the point- gambling at all as a player or manager is the same crime, and after all, Pete did admit to betting on baseball. I might agree if the slip was dated 2015, but 1986 ?
At any rate, I don't believe Pete was getting reinstated anyway. I have little doubt he bet on baseball, although I do not believe he bet on the Reds to lose (making it worse if he could have helped blow a game), and I think it is sad that virtually all evidence was produced from scumbag criminals looking to make a deal- the definition of a low credibility source... I do also think it's a shame this is all being dredged up again days before the Reds hosted All-Star game, and makes me wonder if the animosity is directed at more than just Rose, but the Reds too.
I understand why gambling brings a ban- it compromises the integrity of the game. I'm not convinced MLB's ignoring PED's didnt compromise the game as much or more, however...but of course, that implicates MLB, the commissioner, owners, etc. MLB has the luxury of being above reproach, and treating every PED issue-as a player only issue. I find it hard to swallow that PED users still get their name on the HOF ballot, and Rose can't. Although the two aren't related, the both question integrity, and financial reprocussions of that. MLB didnt make any money on gambling, but it's obvious that PED's helped increase MLB revenue...that doesn't exactly bolster my confidence in MLB's integrity.