> 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_.

See, this is the one allegation against Rose that I've never heard actually stated flatly and is, maddeningly, the one allegation that *I* think makes all the difference as to whether he should be re-instated.

I hear people always say "He bet on baseball". Rose himself denies ever betting on baseball, and always has. Rose also claims that the *actual* deal he had with the commissioner concerning his ban was that he would agree to the ban and the commissioner's office would never accuse him of betting on baseball. But one of the first thing out of the commisioner's mouth after announcing the ban is that he believed Rose bet on baseball, thus throwing that whole "deal" out the window in Rose's eyes.

As for my own humble opinion, I don't give a lick what he bet on, UNLESS it can be shown convincingly that Rose bet against his own team. I don't even care if he bet *on* his own team--if nothing else, that just gave him an extra incentive to win. I've never, ever understood why illegal betting on football and basketball is such a heinous sin for a baseball player (worthy of a LIFETIME BAN) and yet doing drugs and smacking around women and being arrested for drunk driving is only worthy of a few games suspension.

Even if Rose bet on baseball, to me it only really matters if he bet against his own team. If he bet on games he was uninvolved with, or even if he bet on his own team, I don't see that as much more of an issue as illegal bets on horse races or boxing matches. The integrity of the game is only called into question when you bet against your own team. Because the game is about winning, and if you bet against your own team, you're obviously not interested in winning that game.

I only think Rose should be inelligible for the Hall if it's provable beyond a reasonable doubt that he bet against his own team, because that's the only sin I can think of that a baseball player can ever commit that would call into question his worthiness to represent baseball in the Hall of Fame. Ty Cobb, the man whose record Rose broke, was a racist and a bigot, as were many people of his era. Babe Ruth was a glutton, a philanderer, and an adulterer. Ted Williams was a total jerk. But the one thing they all had in common was that they played the game to win. And that's all that baseball ever asks of people and all that should be required of them. It's not a popularity contest and it's not a Hall of Role Models. My feeling is the only criteria for entry should be "Did you always play the game the best you possibly could?" and "Did you play it well enough for us to enshrine you in here forever?"

-- Dave