I watched the "Beyond the Glory" show on ESPN the other night and it was about Pete Rose. It was on that show that they said that the rule forbidding a player from entering the Hall of Fame happened AFTER the Rose incident. I'm not claiming that because I heard it on ESPN it must be true but I've never known that particular show to be wrong before so for myself, I'm willing to believe it to be true. The rule that Pete broke also allows for him to apply for reinstatement after one year. Re-instating him would NOT be breaking a rule.

I've read in this thread that he should be in the Hall of Shame. Yep, SHAME on Pete for getting over 4000 hits in his career, SHAME on Pete for winning three World Series and SHAME on Pete for being one of the greatest baseball players of all time. Betting on baseball was WRONG and lying about it was WRONG but it doesn't change what he did as a PLAYER. I understand that an apology doesn't change that he bet on baseball, but betting on baseball doesn't change that Pete Rose was one of the most influential baseball players in the history of baseball.

My point earlier was that a player that corks his bat or uses artificial enhancements taints the game a lot more than someone who bets on his OWN team. My opinion on this would be a lot different if he had bet against his own team but he didn't. I'm sure if he did and it could be proven, MLB would be all over that one.

My vote would be to allow Pete back into baseball again as a manager but I can understand the logic behind not letting him manage a team again because he did in fact break the rule. But the logic behind not letting him in the Hall of Fame because of actions taken after he stopped playing the game is just wrong. It not only hurts Rose, but it hurts all baseball fans who grew up learning the game by watching him.....


Frank