Pete Rose swore that he never bet on baseball, and I admired him.
I saw him in many interviews, and he never looked happy. He looked like he was just there. Then I saw him hitting wiffle balls into the audience on the rosie "I ate my own child" o'donnel show. He was grinning from ear to ear and it made me happy to see Charlie Hustle happy.
Then he admitted that he bet on baseball, but never on the Reds. His game was still pure.
Now, he's tarnished that... and I don't know what to think about his on-field acomplishments.
He claims that he always bet on the Reds to win, but was there a point spread? Did he play poorly near the end of the game in order to keep the run difference to a minimum? Did he manage his players differently, or leave a pitcher in too long?
There are plenty of players tarnishing the game with HGH, but those guys are pansys that can't hit without a little extra juice. Pete Rose was just a damned good player. But, I wonder if he could have been better.
A short note to Michael Young: If we find out that you're tarnishing the game at the Ballpark in Arlington, I swear to God I'm going to climb a bell tower with a rifle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment