Originally Posted by Nasty
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.
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.