Let's have our on vote

[Kornbix]

Why not we have our on Rose trial? Let's all vote on why he should or should not be in the hall of fame. Explain your answers and we'll see who wins. This poll will close after 10 days.

[Ellis]

Yes, he did gamble on baseball. And yes, it was wrong. But why can't we look past that and see him for the great player he was? He was one of the greatest hitters of all time and played with more heart than anyone else. Every game he gave 110%. The Hall of Fame is for the best PLAYERS, not the best man off the feild. It's not like he was some big stariod or drug freak. He just bet on baseball games. Big woop.

[LightningDave]

Baseball is, in the end, an entertainment industry, and so if Pete Rose is who America wants, then give it to them. To me, stifling Pete and his supporters by making him a museum piece is a hell of a lot better than having him parade around as a victim of Baseball's tyranny. And then maybe the next time he gets busted or declares bankruptcy, he will be recognized for what he is, a lying, cheating criminal-with-a-gambling-problem Hall of Famer who has embarrassed all of Baseball.

[Brandon]

Ok, I wouldn't mind if he was reinstated. But the rules are rules, and just because he is the Hit King and Charlie Hustle, doesn't mean he should necessarily be given any special treatment over the other players who play by the same rules.

He gambled on baseball, he admitted it, he got banned.

So I could go either way.

[Brad O.]

Maybe I'll start caring about Pete Rose when Shoeless Joe Jackson is in Cooperstown.

From the Washington Post:

Truth Be Told, Rose Owes Baseball

By Thomas Boswell
Thursday, December 12, 2002; Page D01


For years, I've tried to find a way to illustrate the issues in the Pete Rose case so that fans can understand why the sport is so adamantly, and correctly, opposed to Rose being reinstated until he admits the acts that led to his banishment.

Maybe I've finally got it. I hope so, because Rose recently had a meeting with Commissioner Bud Selig to discuss getting back into the sport and the Hall of Fame, too.

Imagine that a star college athlete has been caught cheating repeatedly. The proper school authorities investigate his case. They conclude that there is plenty of evidence to warrant his expulsion. He isn't accused of any crime. But they believe he has violated the most basic rule of the institution: You can't cheat.

The case has caused a scandal and the school wants to bring the issue to closure. The student, who has even threatened to sue the school, doesn't want a formal finding on his record that he cheated. But he is willing to accept the expulsion.

On the day that the famous student-athlete leaves campus, the college president says publicly that he agrees with the school's lengthy report that the student cheated extensively and repeatedly. That 51-year-old college president, who presided over the investigation personally, dies of a heart attack the same week.

For the next 13 years, the student-athlete, call him Pete Rose, tells anyone who will listen that he never cheated, that he never admitted to cheating, that it was never "proved" that he cheated -- despite the college's 225-page report with seven volumes of added material -- and that he wants to be readmitted to school.

While pursuing image rehabilitation in the media, which further embarrasses the school, he pleads his case to one university president after another. He also says he wants to be eligible for the school's Hall of Fame. Whenever possible, he shows up at big sports events at the school and gets ovations.

The ex-student says he can't imagine why the school, after all these years, still stands by its exhaustive internal investigation of his behavior and still acts as though he was . . . well . . . a cheater. It's unfair, he says, that they won't let him back, or put him in their Hall of Fame, unless he admits that he was wrong.

The public has the Rose case backward. It is baseball that was damaged by Rose. It's baseball that went through proper, inescapable procedures to investigate Rose. It is baseball that, beyond a reasonable doubt (but not beyond a shadow of a doubt) is correct on the facts.

What's surprising is that all baseball asks of Rose -- in exchange for letting him scout, coach, be a general manager, for that matter -- is admit what he did. That seems to be it. Then the Prodigal Son can return.

Baseball has always had empathy for Rose, although his intransigence has often made sympathy impossible. During its seven-month investigation, baseball wanted Rose to confess and admit his gambling problems, so that the sport could, eventually, forgive him. Get kicked out for a while. Get yourself fixed. Get reinstated. Rose just couldn't or wouldn't do it.

The final act still seems stunning. Bart Giamatti was convinced that Rose's central character trait was denial of his gambling problem. And that Rose would agree to anything, as long as he didn't have to acknowledge it publicly. The truth, followed by the normal progression of punishment and rehabilitation, wasn't an option.

So, Giamatti offered Rose one of the oddest "compromises" on record. Perhaps only a Yale president would grasp that Pete would say "yes" to a deal any normal person would reject. If Rose would accept the maximum possible penalty for his misdeed -- lifetime banishment -- he would not have to admit that he had actually done the deed at all. That's like signing off on your own capital punishment, as long as your last words can be, "I didn't do it."

Giamatti knew his man. Or thought he did. He suspected Rose would never change. His denial might be permanent. So, baseball structured its agreement with Rose to reflect that probability.

"The banishment for life of Pete Rose from baseball is the sad end of a sorry episode," said Giamatti. "There is absolutely no deal for reinstatement. That is exactly what we did not agree to."

That is exactly what we did not agree to. How chilling. Giamatti concluded that Rose's denial -- of what the commissioner considered to be incontrovertible facts -- would never change.

To this day, that impasse remains.

Baseball shouldn't have a statute of limitations on the truth. Or, in the case of Rose, the truth as it can best be gleaned after months of investigation and enormous amounts of evidence. No other part of American life allows it. In 13 years, will executives from Enron or WorldCom, who are currently banned from boardrooms, be reinstated because, although they resigned in disgrace, they never actually admitted that they cooked the books?

Before Game 4 of the World Series, Rose received an ovation from the Giants crowd when he was among those honored for the game's greatest moments. It may even have been the biggest cheer. Americans love to forgive.

However, baseball and Rose have a problem that is never going to go away. Just as a school must enforce its rules against cheating, baseball must enforce its rules against gambling on the game. It's central. In almost any such case, if the person involved flatly denies his guilt, there will always be some tiny element of doubt. But the institution still has to stand by its best attempt at justice.

Rose's former teammate, Joe Morgan, said, "It all starts with Pete. He's got to come clean. He's got to make it right."

What is perhaps most remarkable about the Rose case is that, despite 13 years of pain, a powerful positive ending is still possible. But that solution must start with Rose. Not with baseball.


© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Charlie Hustle should be in the Hall of Fame, but, as Dr. Evil would say, "Throw me a frickin' bone here!" He should admit that he gambled and damaged the game of baseball. I think it's sleazy as hell that he tries to win in the media. We've been looking for an excuse to put Rose in the Hall for decades now! Just admit it, Pete.

Also, someone please tell ESPN that I care what Johnnie Cochran and Alan Dershowitz think about Pete Rose about as much as I care what my cat thinks about Pete Rose.

[HibachiDG]

I'm probably one of the few people out there that doesn't think Rose gambled on baseball. Well actually, I think he gambled on baseball, but my opinion means nothing when faced with the facts of the situation. The FACTS of the situation is that there is NO evidence to say Rose bet on BASEBALL. Horses, dogs, football, cats, monkeys, basketball, he bet on it all and there were pages upon pages of betting slips for his bets on damn near everything BESIDES baseball.

Then the Dowd report has those two slips. Those ones with baseball games. Those slips that only occur those two times. Those slips that were perhaps, maybe in his handwriting. Those slips that had a game which was Cincy at Montreal. Well, there WASNT A GAME BETWEEN THOSE TEAMS THAT DAY. And the day before, when there was a game, it was IN Cincy. Yea. Rose is going to mess up the day AND the location? Right.

I wish people who think Rose bet on baseball would read the Dowd Report in it's entirety. I know it is long and tedious at times, but please, read it all and then make a decision on Rose. There is not evidence that Rose bet on baseball. Once you read the Dowd Report you will realize that Dowd was a man searching for attention and this was his way to get it.

If you don't want to do that, but do want to know why the betting slips are bogus, I'd be happy to inform. There are games on the slips that Dowd claims are baseball when they are in fact basketball. The fingerprint, all that.

When you break down the Dowd Report you have simple...a man, Dowd, listening to criminals who are trying to cover their asses.

[catman]

Add my vote to those who think that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. I would have no problem with Joe Jackson being there as well. Pete Rose did some things, off the field, that were not good for the game. Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and Judge Landis did things that were much worse (allegedly). They are all in the Hall and no one thinks twice about what they did to the game.
The Hall of Fame needs Pete Rose as a member to be complete, as he is likely to remain the hits leader forever.
And Brad, what does your cat think of Pete Rose? Mine like him.

[da12ken]

I vote no. To me, its (baseball) like the Garden of Eden. Do what you want, but don't eat from the freaking tree! Rose did break the cardinal rule so he doesn't deserve a plaque. All of his accomplishments are secondary to him betting on baseball. Personally I wish Shoeless Joe was in the Hall but if I had a vote I would have to say no, because otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

And letting Rose into the Hall only after he admits betting on baseball after all these years of lying is BS.

[Cubs88]

The Hall of Fame is a place for the All Time Greatest Baseball Players. Pete Rose was the best hitter ever.

Betting on baseball isn't wrong unless you get caught. And well, Rose never admitted it, but he probably did bet on baseball. Like he is the only player ever to do it??? No, he just got allegedly caught.

But whats done is done. Look at what Pete Rose was as a Baseball Player, and there is no way you can say "No, he shouldn't be in the HOF."
This has nothing to do with his personall life and problems.

I believe(as stated earlier) it was Ty Cobb who assaulted a ONE-HANDED man who made a comment toward Cobb. Now thats makes baseball look classy right?

Pete Rose should be in, and I believe it will happen.

[HibachiDG]

Originally posted by da12ken
I vote no. To me, its (baseball) like the Garden of Eden. Do what you want, but don't eat from the freaking tree! Rose did break the cardinal rule so he doesn't deserve a plaque. All of his accomplishments are secondary to him betting on baseball. Personally I wish Shoeless Joe was in the Hall but if I had a vote I would have to say no, because otherwise I would be a hypocrite.

And letting Rose into the Hall only after he admits betting on baseball after all these years of lying is BS.

If you're going to make these statements can you at least back them up? Please?

[da12ken]

Of course, no one here knows everything about Rose and what he's done, but I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence: the betting slips, the fact that he's still a compulsive gambler, that he agreed to the lifetime ban to prevent further investigation, the accounts from various bookies (who were criminals). All of the above lead me to believe that he bet on baseball. And if he indeed did bet on baseball, he should under no circumstance be allowed in the hall.

If Pete Rose does become eligible (which I believe will happen one of these days) then so should Shoeless Joe. Of course there hasn't been nearly as much sympathy towards Jackson as there has been to Rose, and Joe will probably never get a whiff of Cooperstown.

[rickcoyle]

I think they should let him in. Im sick of hearing about it. Get in behind us.

[Marc]

Yes, he belongs in the HOF because of the same old argument: I believe the credentials to be in a sporting HOF entirely deals with what happens on the field. It shouldn't consider what type of person he is. The facts are that Rose had a HOF-type career on the diamond.

[Kornbix]

They should let him in or do something. The whining about it is pathetic. Anybody see the Pete Rose on trial show?

[Richard the Lionheart]

Is betting on baseball really any different than corking your bat or throwing spitballs?