ok, here goes. he was betting 10,000 dollars a game, against his own team when he was managing the reds. he was into the books 200,000 gs. now he at first denied everything and later admitted it. every commissioner that reviewed his case came to the same cconclusion. he was betting against his own team. in 1989 sports illustrated issue its clear what he was doing. betting 10,000 a game against your own team when your manager? surely its easy to sway the game.
They never PROVED shit. Everything that you just posted, especially the SI article, is HEARSAY. And yes, he admitted to betting baseball, and ON the Reds. He NEVER admitted betting AGAINST the Reds. So post a direct link that cites that he was found guilty of betting against the Reds, or just admit that one doesn't exist.
"I got news for you. If it wasn't for the toilet, there would be no books." --- George Costanza.
