http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/08/why-pete-rose-still-cant-be-absolved/378866/
I haven't been able to Google proof that he bet against his own team so I withdraw the claim that he did so. However, as the above story shows, how much he bet on his team to win signaled to the bookies his confidence level regarding the team's chances in that game:
Also, read the Dowd report for much more information: http://thedowdreport.com/
I haven't been able to Google proof that he bet against his own team so I withdraw the claim that he did so. However, as the above story shows, how much he bet on his team to win signaled to the bookies his confidence level regarding the team's chances in that game:
It matters for two reasons. First, when Rose did not bet on the Reds, his inaction was a signal to his bookies that he wasn’t very confident in that game. Those bookies may have used this inside information to place a bet against the Reds. This doesn’t mean the game was fixed, but is reflective of Rose’s state of mind. He was compromised. Second, his wager on certain games, but not others, may have influenced the way he made decisions as a manager.
[...]
Differing bet amounts are telling. If he bet $100 one game and $1,000 another game, what message is he telling his team? Or his bookie? Or himself? It shows he had fluid levels of confidence in certain games versus others. This distinction is important. For example, according to John Dowd, when certain Reds’ pitchers took the mound, Rose didn’t bet at all.
Also, read the Dowd report for much more information: http://thedowdreport.com/