Replies

The question is often confused. Most people think it is: should off-field behavior be considered when evaluating a player for the HOF?

If that were the question the discussion would be complicated...should O.J. Simpson, for example, be in the football HOF?

But that is not the correct question -- the Rose situation is clearer than that. Betting on the sport you are a part of is NOT off-field behavior. It implicates your on-field play. It creates a presumption that your competitive effort is for sale. There is no need to have actual proof of throwing a game. The HOF honor is not just for guys who put up great numbers; it also indicates that you honored the game by your presence in it.

Rose, unarguably one of the best hitters in history, has not honored the game. Rose deserves the ban.

The 1919 World Serious Championship will forever be tainted because the Black Sox threw the Serious in collaboration with gamblers.

Gambling on your own team is the ONE AND ONLY "Capital" crime in baseball. Every ballplayer knows that. If gambling on your own team is OK, and deciding when as a manager you place bets based on who starts is OK, then baseball becomes big-time wrestling.

I have absolutely no sympathy for Pete Rose. He has no honor, no honesty, no remorse, no integrity, no class, and no business in any Hall of Fame. NO player is bigger than the game -- including Rose.

That 1919 Championship that was tainted belongs to -- The Cincinnati Reds! If ANY baseball fans should have ZERO tolerance for lowlife players or managers who conspire with gamblers to ruin baseball, it should be Reds Fan.