Steve, great job on this and I agree with your conclusions entirely: in if he admits and aplogizes. I would also like to see some kind of statement on his HOF plaque that he is in as a player, and that he was disgraced as a manager for gambling.

May I suggest that you prowars refrain from use of the word "fisking," as Fisk has now been completely vindicated by events in Iraq? I've got 87 billion reasons why he's gloating, and why the use of "fisking" has become a perverse homage to him from the War Cult.

I'm not a baseball fan, so I don't follow things like this much. Why are so many fans convinced that Rose is innocent?

Or is it just (as I've heard) that they believe that he is not alone, but is being made an example to others?

This whole Pete Rose thing is a fascinating study of a guy who played everything to the extreme. Even his banishment from the game that he so dearly loved.

Mr. Silver - not sure if you knew this but the Baseball Prospectus adamantly stands by its reporting of Rose's return to baseball. The writer of the infamous story was on the Jim Rome radio show and absolutely, positively would not back down from the reliability of his sources.

It's clear to most reasonable thinking men and women that Rose gambled on baseball while *as a manager* and it is also clear that based on his player performance he belongs on in the Hall of Fame.

Eric - I'm curious why if Pete ever does get to Cooperstown you feel his plaque should say he gambled as a manager? What does that him gambling *as a manager* have to do with his accomplishments as a player?

I believe the truth lies somewhere between what Bud Sehlig is saying and the Baseball Prospectus reported: that Pete is going to be made elligible for Hall of Fame consideration within the next 3 years.

Why? Because there's only a couple years left for the baseball writers to determine Pete's induction into the Hall. After that it will go to the Veterans committee and the speculation seems to be that they will not be as likely to put Pete on the ballot as the writers.

More compassion for Pete from the writers than former players, imagine that?

T, just that the plaque should reflect that his enshrinement is based upon his playing career only, and that as a manager he let the game, his city, his team, himself, down.

Eric - I'm still not seeing the logic there. So if a guy writes a bestseller and then later gets put in the clink for say tax evasion, then should his bestseller carry some text blurb about how he was a great author, but he evaded his taxes?

I don't see the correlation between what Pete did on the field versus what he did in the clubhouse in so far as determining how he should be acknowledged in Cooperstown if he should ever actually make it there.

Those 4000+ hits earn him a seat next to some of the others with more than questionable character like Ty Cobb.

I do realize and agree with those that feel strongly that Pete should never be allowed to manage in the game again, but I don't think baseball will let him into one area and not the other. They would have to make some sort of Pete Rose rule (which I guess some of the rules have changed since what happened to him, so it's not that far fetched).

Baseball is driven by $$$ and secondarily by its own morals and ethics and there are fans who want to see Pete -- and will pay to see Pete -- on the field again. Just look at the ovation he got during the All Century Team celebration. His ovation was louder than Hank Aaron's!

As long as that is the case, this remains a very likely possibility that he'll be allowed totally back into the game, not just for Hall of Fame consideration.

I wouldn't be surprised though if we see some kind of decision on this during the offseason.

Eric, such a note on his plaque would be completely unprecedented, but of course so would allowing a gambler entry.

I go further than most. If there is evidence that he bet on baseball and the Reds as a manager (and I'm convinced there is), he should be forever banned. If he admits it, we should forgive him AND never allow him back in the game or in the Hall of Fame.
It's pretty simple to me. No one will watch the game at all if they're not absolutely sure the it is on the level. So, no one who bets on the game can be allowed in it.
Baseball's continued profitably derives almost entirely from its credibility. This is why we musn't separate "clubhouse" behavior from "on-field" when it comes to gambling. The character of the people involved is not an issue.

Also, I must add that if you give a man a fisk, he will eat tonight, but if you TEACH a man to fisk, he eats for a lifetime.

CC, great line.

Here is my thinking: the writer/income tax evader thing doesn't hold because both of these jobs are integral to baseball - two heads of the same coin, playing and managing. I would forgive, let him in the Hall specifically as a player, with the caveat of mentioning the gambling as a manager. That way he gets the recognition he deserves as a player (no evidence I am aware of for gambling on baseball as a player), yet the sin is never forgotten becuase it's right there on the plaque, and of course he can't manage again ever because that's where the sin was committed.

It's a bit of a serpentine judgment, but I think it addresses all the main questions, and the most prolific basehitter in Major League history gets is place in the Hall, but not without an asterisk, as it were.

Did you watch the Pete Rose mock trial by chance, Eric? Despite it not meaning a whole lot, it was actually a pretty interesting and entertaining four hours of television.

I think Bill "Spaceman" Lee's argument made the most sense, as odd as it made seem: baseball is already full of hypocrisy. Baseball honored Gaylord Perry who was one of the dirtiest pitchers to ever play the game. Is there an asterisk next to his name in Cooperstown? No.

An asterisk next to Pete Rose's name anywhere that has to do with something he allegedly (though I think we all agree he is guilty) did while managing would be an insult in the face of others who have cheated and been honored for it.

The writer/tax thing is a working analogy because if one doesn't pay the taxes on his/her advances and royalties, what do you think is eventually going to happen?

I will agree though that the big difference would be where if a manager of a baseball game gambled then it could disrupt the integrity of the game and threaten MLB to turn into something like pro wrestling. So there is that angle where the writer/tax analogy falls short.

The whole Roger Maris / Babe Ruth homeroom asterisk thing never made sense to me either -- especially in light of what has happened in recent years with McGwire, Sosa and the incredible Barry Bonds.

The Hall of Fame is a sham without acknowledging Pete Rose for his hitting accomplishment.

Get in the cage and just try to hit a 100 mile per hour fastball. I've tried and it wasn't pretty LOL. I am surprised and amazed by the skills of these atheletes.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Eric. No asterisk for me.

The thing I never hear mentioned, and that means the most to me, is whether Pete ever gambled on the Reds to lose. As manager, he could make the decisions necessary to bring about a loss. Ala the Black Sox. While betting on them to win isn't right, (he could presumably have used his best players to try to ensure a win), it doesn't seem as bad somehow.

Antfreeze - that issue was raised during the trial and everybody seemed to agree that there was no evidence in the Dowd report or anywhere else that Pete ever did gamble against the Reds.

What they did point out, though, was that there were days where he didn't bet on the Reds and that was almost as bad because it sent a message to the bookies that Pete didn't have confidence in the Reds to win. Which, I guess, in a twisted sort of a way was a bet for the other team.

Time to revisit this piece as Pete Rose has a book coming out and an interview on January 8th to declare that he did indeed bet on baseball and that there is an agreement in place for Rose to return to MLB.

tis website sucks big balls