I loved Pete the player and Pete the manager as much as anyone else, and I also enjoyed most of this article. However, I feel as if I must play the role of Buzz Killington
by disputing what I perceive to be some glaring inconsistencies.
Pete says he hasn't bet on baseball since 1987. Although I have no concrete proof that he is lying, I disagree completely with that statement. As a compulsive gambler, he is/was an addict, just the same as someone who is compulsively addicted to alcohol or drugs. I seriously doubt that he suddenly stopped. And I seriously doubt that he no longer feels the compulsive urge.
He says he never bet on baseball as a player. Again, I disagree completely. John Erardi states in the introduction to his book Wire To Wire
that he heard from Pete's own mother that Pete "lost a bundle" on the 1984 World Series (while he was still an active player). These two statements cannot both be true at the same time. Regarding Erardi and Rose, which one of these gentlemen has more credibility? The respected journalist, or the compulsive liar/gambling addict?
He says he doesn't go to casinos
And when he goes to baseball games, he pays for his ticket? I seriously doubt both of these statements also.
And at the end of the article, he becomes a Paterno supporter? Yikes.............