Never underestimate the clever minds of dedicated horseplayers. I never contemplated "darkening form" to bet upon baseball matchups. You're apparently saying "making the Reds look bad for the chance to bet upon them another day when he managed with greater zeal?" I suppose with a person of horrible character anything is possible, but I don't think Pete Rose is that type of person. I think he's very much like many here. I think he likes to gamble some. Realistically, I don't think a manager can darken the form of pitchers and hitters unless they are in on the bet also. There is no allegation that Pete Rose fixed games or managed with less than an all out effort to win. If there was a scintilla of that kind of evidence I'm assured we would have heard of it.

Pete Rose bet on baseball in a era when betting on baseball is legal, although at the time he did bet with a bookie is my understanding. He bet on his team to win and he broke Judge Landis's rule. But baseball is filled with illegality and other rule breakers and those players are allowed to play the game. If Pete Rose had fixed a game I would fully understand his lifetime exclusion, but that is not the case. Without fixing games all Pete Rose did was break a rule. He broke a rule like so many of the steroid users break rules.

He should have known better. It was an extraordinary lapse of judgement, not unlike the lapse of judgement that others in baseball have made and been forgiven for in the recent past. This isn't a Black Sox scandal. Its about one man that bet on his team to win. Judge him upon that.

CtC