And few players attacked the integrity of the game like Rose did. There is overwhelming evidence that he bet on the Cincinnati Reds while he was their manager, and not just on them, but that he bet _against_his_own_team_. And it only follows that he managed those games according to his betting patterns, not the will to win. Jim Dowd was an investigator hired by the Commissioner's Office to get to the bottom of Rose's activities. Dowd contends, for example, that there is ample evidence that Rose would bet against his team when he would start certain pitchers, and that when Rose started these pitchers, it was a tipoff to the bookies who had Rose in their collective pocket as to which way he was betting on the game.

The fact that Rose *agreed* to his lifetime ban is often downplayed by those who favor his reinstatement. Part of the agreement was that he would never have to actually admit to gambling on baseball, or more importantly: betting on his own team.

All that being said, I do believe that the Hall of Fame exists to honor the on-field accomplishments of players. It is, after all, the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Perfectly Moral And Ethically Upstanding Citizens. But I would argue that he does not deserve a full reinstatement. (Meaning that I do not believe he should be allowed to participate in Major League Baseball proper, be it in a managerial capacity, as a scout, whatever.)

The Other "Baseball talk on the RinkForum? You RULE, Howard" Matthew