Originally Posted by
CoachChaz
The media reports things in a vague manner to lead the public to understand that Rose bet on Reds games. Typically, they dont state he only bet ON the Reds...just that he bet on the games. It's vague and can lead people to believe he voted against them at times, too.
That's because I don't think anyone (ok, I know that's an exaggeration) really BELIEVEs he didn't bet against his own team. Now before you tell me "there is no proof".. I TOTALLY get that. I also know there wasn't proof against Armstrong, and he was the MOST TESTED athlete in the world. Until there was proof. Now obviously there are people that are going to say that "if there is no proof, then you can't hold it against him." Well, not in the eyes of Baseball that is looking out for the image of their MEGA-huge business.
Rose had a gambling problem...a SERIOUS gambling problem. Hard to believe that he wouldn't try to get himself out of problems by taking that chance by making a pitching change, or whatever, to help his odds. Now again, if there is even the SLIGHTEST chance that he did do this (proof or no proof)...there is no way baseball can allow him in. The Branding of MLB is just toooooo important. Obviously baseball is making a statement, and a very strong statement, with Rose. One that they feel can not waiver.
I personally believe, that its foolish to think that Pete ONLY bet FOR the Reds. I mean, that sounds great because we like Pete Rose the player. It just sounds so.. so..."Patriotic" of him. But I just don't believe that to be the case. I believed Armstrong... hell... I believed Braun. Considering how many lies the commissioner of baseball has seen/heard/witnessed over the years... not to mention the things he knows about that are going on behind the scenes? I don't blame him for a second in not believing this "I only bet FOR the Reds" stuff. Hell, the commish may already know the truth on that. Doesn't mean he has the "hard proof" with Roses signature, but I'm betting he knows more about it than we do. I bet he knows more than he has said.
(the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)