Please forgive my obvious ignorance but I thought that the criteria for the HOF was how well a player had played and not that he might have bet on a game!! I can understand getting upset over a player throwing a game for money, That is undoutably wrong and deserves the harshest sanctions. Was there any evidence that Rose had done this as manager? or was it just the fact that he placed a bet (which I believe he still denies) He was convicted of tax evasion ( a honrable crime:-)but even the commision (other than Giamatti) said that there was doubt about his betting on the game, even Prez Jimmy Carter has come out and said that he should be eligable for the HOF

I am by the way a british fan

ORC'S Rule