Quote:Did the bookie claim he bet against the Reds?  If he bet on every single game, but always to win, how did he cheat?

I give up! You obviously have not thought this out. You ask:

 

"Has any evidence ever been put forth to prove Rose bet on his team as either a player or a coach?"

 

I answered that question with a direct quote from old Pete himself. Then you come back with another qualifier:

 

"If he bet on every single game, but always to win, how did he cheat?"

 

If you want to believe he only bet to win, and if you believe betting to win is permissible, and if you believe betting on your own team is acceptable, then peace be with you. But in the beginning Pete's claim was he only bet on horses, upon further investigation then he bet on horses and football, upon further investigation then he bet on horses, football, and baseball but not the Reds, upon further investigation he bet on horses, football, baseball and the Reds. Most of the baseball people who admire the purity of the sport, and who manage the integrity of the game, know damn well Pete's a scum bag liar. But some don't want to see what's obvious.

 

Additionally, I don't understand how his supporters cannot support baseball's steadfast rule: "Under MLB Rule 21, "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." It doesn't say only if they bet against their team.

 

Regards....................the Chiefjag

---