[xzins]

I've always been willing to go with what Rose said in the absence of a trial.

He'd said he never bet against his team. But he also said he never bet on baseball.

Who knows?

[vwrcmember]

You sez: "I've always been willing to go with what Rose said in the absence of a trial."


I sez: While not a trial, the Dowd (?) report had plenty of evidence of his wrongdoings. It was never released as part of the agreement where Pete Rose agreed to his lifetime ban. He then spent years saying that there was no evidence that he bet on baseball.

The character issue is separate from the gambling issue. The game of baseball has decided that gambling is a cardinal sin and is more damaging to the game than any other behavior available to those associated with it. For that reason, the lifetime ban is the prescribed punishment.

I know you didn't say it, but the argument that if Pete is kept out, then there are a bunch of others who need to be removed is ignoring this fundamental difference between gambling on the game and other nasty character traits.

*If* he is reinstated and allowed to be voted into the hall (I would love to see him not get voted in), there should be a huge bronze plaque next to his playing stats that details the circumstances surrounding his ban and reinstatement.

I fear that Bud Selig is trying to salvage his own legacy as commissioner (who else do we know that is worried about his legacy above all else?), and will do the popular thing and reinstate Rose, rather than uphold his position as protector of the game.