| 0 |
Subject: Need some help to settle Pete Rose "debate"
Posted by: sarge33rd
- [99331714] Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 16:39
I think we all know, he was betting on games. Thats not the question.
Everything I recall reading/hearing, indicated that he ONLY bet ON his team to win, not against them. On another forum, there is one who maintains that he was "laying off" bets by betting against Cincy while he was player/manager.
Does anyone KNOW definitively on this? |
| 1 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 4110481415
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 16:55
|
I do not know for sure...but I had heard he was only betting on his team to win. Another thing to look into/think about was even if he was always betting them to win was he always betting the same amount or did he put 10 dimes on them one day and 1 dime the next or laying off another.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 54650208
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 17:05
|
He was coy about the whole thing, and never said for sure.
It took him 14 years to say that he bet on his team at all, and only did so in his book after blasting Dowd and Vincent the whole time.
The only thing we know for sure is that he bet on the Reds.
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
Leader
ID: 01629107
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 17:13
|
John Dowd said the deadline for his 2002 report didn't allow his investigation enough time to determine whether Rose bet against the Reds. Dowd told the New York Post on Wednesday he thought it was "probably right" that Rose not only bet on Reds games but that he bet against the Reds during the mid-to-late-1980s when Rose managed Cincinnati.
The official Dowd Report says "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds."
Dowd said Thursday he was asked by the Post whether he came across any evidence that Rose gambled against his team. Dowd said he told the paper there was some, but it was inconclusive.
"I was never able to tie it down,'' Dowd said. "It was unreliable, and that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it. I was not trying to start something here.''
Dowd also told the Post that Rose did not bet on the Reds whenever two pitchers, including Mario Soto, started, which "sent a message through the gambling community that the Reds can't win" on those days.
|
| 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 18:06
|
Thanks guys!!
"unreliable and inconclusive" works for my purposes.
|
| 5 | Toral
ID: 575542418
Fri, Jul 20, 2007, 20:27
|
Funny you should ask this today.
I was just thinking of one of the most prominent baseball lawyers/fans/ arguers ever, Doug Pappas , longtime poster on rec.sport.baseball, an anti-Rose person and Dowd defender, who I used to interchange with and argue with, -- former columnist with the unofficial Boston Redsox magazine -- the one sold outside Fenway Park. (He's now dead.) Doug was the biggest Rose attacker in the world (and a Dowd confidante, I believe, although he never so claimed). After someone wrote a powerful article urging reconsideration of Rose's case, citing errors in the the Dowd report, I found his e-address as a lawyer and asked him what he thought of it.
His comment was that if Rose were to be sort-of-reinstated, Dowd (or some substitute) ought to be allowed to continue with his investigation and issue a full report. Doug Pappas, though often blunt spoken, even sometimes wild in his comments, was a careful man when he spoke about things like evidence and law. I interpreted his comment, and other comments over the years, to mean that he believed that if a complete investigation would have proceeded, it would have found evidence that Rose did indeed sometimes bet against the Reds. He was not definite or dogmatic about this. I suspect Dowd found not conclusive or even persuasive evidence -- maybe even not strong evidence -- but some evidence.
The historical verdict must be unclarity, with a strong presumption of evidence in Rose's favour..
Toral
|
| 6 | Ref
Donor
ID: 539581218
Sat, Jul 21, 2007, 11:49
|
The simple fact that he didn't bet for the Reds on certain games is tantamount to betting against them anyway. Maybe you rest your pen the day you didn't bet for them. Maybe you don't go all out to win and even if Rose didn't bet against the Reds, it's a clear sign for others that knew what he was doing to bet against them.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|