FanHome - View Single Post

Roxpert · December 28th, 2006, 04:18 PM

Drew,

Even if Pete Rose only bet on the Reds to win, it could ruin the integrity of the games he managed that he DIDN'T have money on. In other words, who's to say that Rose didn't hold Rob Dibble out of a winnable game that he didn't bet on, in order to save him for another game that he does bet on?

In other words, the possible fact that Rose only bet on the Reds to win is just as bad, if not worse, than it would be if he bet on them to both win and lose. He could stack a lineup and use his best bullpen options when he has money on the line, and rest players and use scrubs when he has no economic interest in the outcome. Get it?

He could EVEN let someone like Dibble in for 2 or 3 innings of a tight game because he's desperate to win a game he put a lot of money on, risking his player's HEALTH.

Keep Rose out. Read the rules for induction, and you'll agree

December 28th, 2006, 04:18 PM	#5 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,090	Drew, Even if Pete Rose only bet on the Reds to win, it could ruin the integrity of the games he managed that he DIDN'T have money on. In other words, who's to say that Rose didn't hold Rob Dibble out of a winnable game that he didn't bet on, in order to save him for another game that he does bet on? In other words, the possible fact that Rose only bet on the Reds to win is just as bad, if not worse, than it would be if he bet on them to both win and lose. He could stack a lineup and use his best bullpen options when he has money on the line, and rest players and use scrubs when he has no economic interest in the outcome. Get it? He could EVEN let someone like Dibble in for 2 or 3 innings of a tight game because he's desperate to win a game he put a lot of money on, risking his player's HEALTH. Keep Rose out. Read the rules for induction, and you'll agree Last edited by Roxpert; December 28th, 2006 at 04:20 PM.