Rather than hijack another thread, I'm re-posting this message with a new central question. When did you decide that Pete really was guilty of betting on baseball? The following led to me actually pondering this question:
It's interesting to study "when" it hit Reds' fans that Pete bet on baseball. For me it was the August 1989 press conference with Bart Giamatti where he accepted a lifetime ban. Up until that point I supported Pete and thought the Commissioner and his boys were railroading him. But it all changed at that presser. If Pete was going to accept those terms then he must be guilty. For years afterwards I argued with other Reds fans about this until now, most of them admit his guilt.
The other end of the spectrum are the folks who called into local talk shows after his on TV admission with Charlie Gibson saying things like "I think Pete just said that he bet on baseball in order to get people off his back and get into the HoF. I don't think he really ever bet on BB."
Where do you fall on this?




Reply With Quote