Why don't people realize that not betting on the Reds is every bit as bad as betting against them (Pete Rose)

Question

Pete Rose finally admitted to gambling on baseball including placing bets on the Reds to win. The Dowd Report states that he did not bet on the Reds to win all of the time which is just as bad as betting on them to lose as far as I'm concerned. Let's say, hypothetically, the Reds and Cards have a 3 game series coming up. Rose bets on the Reds to win games 2 and 3 but doesn't put any money on game 1. You don't think he will be saving his bullpen a bit for games 2 and 3? You don't think he would give his ailing catcher or 2nd baseman an extra day of rest for games 2 and 3 where his money is? Rose apologists using "he never bet against the Reds" need to get a much better excuse. Agree?

No, I cannot backup what I said with specific game situations, hence the word "hypothetically" that prefaced my example. The point I am trying to illustrate here is that it only stands to reason that he would manage a game differently if he had money on that game as opposed to a game he didn't, especially games in the same series. People seem to think that what he did was somewhat excusable since he never bet AGAINST the Reds. My point here is, if he doesn't have money on them one night and $10,000 on them the next, he is going to manage the game differently and even perhaps make some decisions in the game early in series that may have a beneficial effect on games later in that series. This is every bit as offensible to me as betting against his team.

Answer 1

People who don't realize this are NEVER going to realize it.

Yes, it is just as bad, but the pertinent issue is that he KNEW that doing it was punishable by being banned and he signed an admission to doing it.

Answer 2

It's very simple actually. People who like Pete, stand up for him, people who don't like him, bash him. Same with Roger Maris years ago, and Bonds, A-Rod and others today. Lots of opinions, some well founded and a lot that aren't. And what you need to keep in mind the most is that it really doesn't matter what we think.................

Answer 3

not a Rose apologist, but can you back up your statements where he rested guys when they didn't need rest, or he used better players in games where he might have had bets on?
not trying to prove you wrong... just wondering...
nice theories, but Lincoln, JFK and 9/11 have hundreds of theories contrary to popular belief as well...

Answer 4

Most people are uninformed about the situation.

I agree with you 100%, betting is bad regardless of how it is done, especially when (as a manager) you have direct input into the outcome of the games.
.

Answer 5

Thank You!I've been saying that for years.Who says he wouldn't use Dibble one game and not the next and you know it's time for Larkin to sit today and save him for the big payoffs?

Answer 6

I agree completely.

Answer 7

whatever,
he is still better than bonds