But after a TON of consideration. I vote him in, but I do not argue with someone who votes against him considering his betting on baseball. Anytime you get involved in such an endeavor, you should pay a price because you risk damaging or even killing the game. I believe he's paid enough of a price. Some think he should not go in because of the black cloud one risks enveloping the game with. I understand that view.
The fact remains that at the VERY LEAST we should have a vote on it!!! The fact that we still have that rule that Fag Vincent wrote which states that ineligible players are also ineligible for the Hall is a sham. He only created that rule because his best friend was Bart Giamatti and he blames Rose for Giamatti's heart attack. Nevermind the fact that Bart smoked THREE packs of cigs a day. This was just a feeble reminder of how petty that crappy commissioner was.
Anyway, considering all the facts, I vote Rose in.
Please don't question my record or I will leave!!!!
I'm not too up on the facts but the way I see it is if he bet on baseball and even bet on the Reds then he just needs to admit it and then he should be eligible. If he bet against the Reds at any time I don't think he should EVER be eligible.
I've heard people say that he bet only on the Reds and others who have said he bet for and against the Reds. Honestly never looked into to which was correct.
Yes he should be in. So what, he bet on baseball. You can open a newspaper everyday and find odds in the sports section. My guess is that at least 85% of the public bets at least once a year.
Currently in the hall, they have murderers, drug dealers, etc. Why not have a gambler ??
Hell Yea i mean look at todays society u know hundreds of athletes are gambling and not getting caught. Shit look at MJ they caught him gambling WHO GIVES A SHIT it is their money so let the athletes be
I say yes, but the issue isn't necessarily him betting, it is the fact that he bet on a sport that he was a manager in. If it didn't involve his team then it is not worth keeping him out.
The issue all these years is that they have indisputable evidence of him betting on baseball, but he still denies it so he is not that credible of a person.
I think that they know for sure he bet on baseball. Even knowing that I say he should be in. The question is did he ever bet AGAINST the Reds when he was the manager. If he did that then there is no way in h*ll he should be allowed in.
I vote no. He should be left out. My reasoning is this: All he has to do in order to allow baseball to keep some of its integrity is admit that what he did was wrong and that he is sorry! He has too much pride to do that, but the way things stand now, baseball thinks they would be condoning what Pete did if they let him in without an admission of guilt and an apology.
He should be in the Hall. He deserves to be in. All he has to do is admit and apologize. He doesn't even have to really mean it! He just isn't too bright. Too bad, but it is his own doing.
Comment