So now Pete Rose is not only admitting he bet on baseball, but he's admitting he bet on his team, the Cincinnati Reds, to win every night. While this may not make the most financial sense (since even great teams still lose at least 60 times), you can't fault Charlie Hustle's faith in his club. For the record, Rose's managerial career with the Reds resulted in 412 wins and 373 losses. So assuming he bet the same amount every time, he's "up" for his career, minus the jail time, of course.Here's my point. I understand why betting on baseball is illegal for players, managers, and staff. It could lead to any number of ills, with the worst-case scenario being a repeat of the 1919 Chicago White Sox scandal, where 8 players intentionally threw the World Series. Players who do/did that have no respect for the game and thus, deserve none in return. But Rose wasn't betting against his team (at least he says he wasn't). This is a guy who wanted to win...who had to win. It didn't matter what he was doing. He wanted to win every time, at every thing. For him, the financial gain associated with a win was just the icing on the cake. He loved the game, he loved his team, and he played it and managed it with everything he had. But he broke the golden rule and has paid a stiff penalty. More than a decade later, does that still warrant a lifetime ban and an outsiders' view of the Hall Of Fame? I'm not sure it does.
