Not one iota of evidence that Pete bet on the Reds to lose. Not that I have seen.
Pete Rose was found by the Dowd report to have bet on games in which he both played and managed. An ESPN reviewed and published the documents from this investigation; they appear to show Rose “winning” on games that the Reds lost. Dowd, while not mentioning this in his report, claimed he “believed” Rose had bet against the Reds
Doesn’t matter. Pete broke the big rule, on a phone, NEXT to where the big rule was posted.
And really, do you believe him? Let’s look at it:
When the whole thing started unraveling he said he never bet on sports
Eventually too much evidence came out, he admitted that was a lie, but insisted he never bet on baseball
Of course that too unraveled, so he admitted that was a lie, BUT he never bet on games involving his team
At the risk of being repetitive, more evidence, another admission of lying, sure he bet on games involving his team but always to win
So according to Pete he LIED about this whole thing 3 times already. So the question is: are you going to take the over or the under? I’m taking the over, I don’t believe him. Meanwhile of course he still gambles incessantly, gets in debt constantly, holds tons of signings in casinos to pay those debts off. And then complains about his ban. He hasn’t learned. He never will. Never trust an addict.