Isn't 20 Years Enough?
 

I don't watch or follow baseball. That said, I thought this article was worth sharing.

The Detroit News Online

Here's my thing w/ Pete Rose. He admitted to gambling on baseball games and even on Reds games that he managed. However, he bet FOR his team, not against it. I don't see how betting for the team you have input in is damaging the integrity of the game? Now, had he bet against the Reds while he was their manager, case closed, he never gets to the Hall of Fame. But to not have the all-time hits leader and one of the greatest players in the history of baseball not in the Hall of Fame is silly.

Pete should be in the hall. He should go in before Barry or Clemmens or any other person known for using steroids.

nope. at that time the only rule in bb was not to bet, he bet for or against his own team was/is against the rule. pete has a lifetime ban, without lifting that he can't go in, no new commish will ever over rule a former commish and lift that ban. his numbers put him in but he broke the only rule.:huh:

Living in Cincy and growing up a Reds fan, I have 2 views on this. The first is that the HOF is based off of what you do in your career. Pete would go in as a player, not manager. Look at the list of players in the HOF of all sports who have done drugs, killed people, DUI's, etc. With that being said, I feel he should go in.

Now comes the hard part. When you say he only bet on his team, not against it, thats not true. If he didnt make a bet, technically he is tipping off bookies to not bet on the Red's. If he isnt comfortable betting on them and he is the manager, why would someone else?

No was far as Pete going in before Bonds or Clemens, I'd say no to that too. How can you punish players for violating a rule that never existed until 2005? On top of that, there is not 100% proof that Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, or Sosa failed a steroids test. Why do you think the federal courts cant even get a case against Bonds for perjury? He never failed a steroids test. He failed an amphetamines test which in 2004 wasnt against the MLB rules. Rose violated a distinct rule.

I feel Rose will make it into the HOF but it will be after he is dead. Once he dies, his lifetime is over and so would his ban. I feel that is fair.

A lifetime ban is fine but that's exactly what it should be. Once he dies he should be eligible for HOF consideration. As "Shoeless" Joe Jackson should be eligible to be elected now. Whether or not Jackson's stats get him into the HOF is a different matter but he should at least be given the option of being voted upon by the veterans committee.

I don't know much about Baseball and I know tapper raises a point that he was breaking a rule.

I gotta say though, there can't be anything wrong with better for your team to win if you think you're going to win. Nothing wrong with trying to earn some more bread.

After all of the fucking cheating that has been PROVEN to have gone on in baseball the last 20 years since, Pete Rose looks like a damned choir boy, but I honestly believe they're doing this out of spite and some self rightgeous attempt by MLB to pretend to have standards and to "clamp down on cheaters", even though they new about the steroid cheaters for quite some time while doing nothing.....

This is BS. Rose is a legend and he's damn sure less a cheater than Bonds or Clemens, so it's either all or none.

If he's betting on his own team he is going manage it so he focuses more on winning the games he bet on and not whats best for the season as a whole. That ruins the integrity.

There also brings up the possibility of playing the cover the spread and not just winning.