It doesn’t have to be substantiated. The suspicion is the reason for the rule, and Rose broke it. I don’t believe he’s ever come clean on all his involvement either, but that’s an opinion, not proof of anything.
It’s relevant in terms of comparison to other rule violations, and I would argue there are disproportionate policies here and baseball should take a good look at itself. As I said before, people will consider the era when they look at the record books.
Clean and spectacular post-suspension career? Let the voters decide. But Rose? Never.
No, those are the numbers from the year they got caught. They sure didn’t seem to help much those years, did they?
You’ve spent considerable time in this thread arguing over the evils of outside forces that “affect the game”, decrying those who used (or were alleged to use) PEDs. I’m just curious where your outrage over those who used amphetamines is, since that also had a demonstrable effect on the game.
I was referring to Bonds, Sosa and McGwire.
From earlier:
60s? You’re not all that familiar with amphetamine use, are you?
My understanding is that Rose accepted the equivalent of a plea bargain. The commission had a mass of evidence about Rose’s gambling that would have been released at a hearing - and the revelation of all of this would have destroyed his career. I’ve heard it said that if the public knew all of the facts, there wouldn’t be anyone saying Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.
But a deal was made. The commission would end the investigation and seal all the evidence. Rose would be able to keep the evidence of his gambling off the public record and could maintain some semblance of his reputation. But the price for this would be that he would never be elected to the Hall of Fame in his lifetime.
When Giamatti died a few months later, Rose began back-tracking. He started talking about how his lifetime ban should be reversed. But pointedly, he never conceded that the baseball commission should reverse their end of the deal. Rose has never suggested that the sealed evidence of his wrongdoings be released to the public. In fact, for fifteen years Rose denied the allegations were true before finally admitted they were (in a book he was selling).
If Rose sincerely feels he should be eligible for election to the Hall of Fame, he should agree to have the evidence opened to the public so the voters can make an informed decision about how serious his transgressions were.
OK, since the 60s. Yeah, I think I’m pretty familiar. I can quote Bouton’s book off the top of my head, relatively accurately, for starters.
And there is no doubt that Rose is, and was, a jerk. I’m trying to look past that for the sake of argument. Ty Cobb’s in, and there may never be a bigger jerk admitted to the HOF. I’m trying to argue the relative damage to the integrity of the game, I guess. Rose’s gambling didn’t have anything to do with the records he set on the field, and were never proven to have changed the outcome of a single game. About Braun, to use today’s example, the same certainly cannot be said. But under my hypothetical above we’d let Braun stand for election, but Rose is banned.
Clearly, however, I’m hugely in the minority here about this.
Nemo: “…would have destroyed his career. I’ve heard it said that if the public knew all of the facts, there wouldn’t be anyone saying Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.”
Obviously, if there were good evidence that Rose did alter the outcome of games due his gambling, my position would be totally reversed, and I would be one of those on the ‘never’ side of the aisle.
Continuing to assume “no evidence” of this for the sake of the argument, and if we can see gambling as an addiction, (which some people can make a learned case for), isn’t it disproportionate if Strawberry, Ryne Duran, the Mick, Billy Martin, Josh Hamilton, et al were never given lifetime bans? (Hell, we know Billy managed games drunk and/or hungover out of his mind. 
)
Nemo, if your understanding is largely factually correct, that does change my position. I didn’t remember those details.
It doesn’t matter because the issue is the integrity of the sport itself. And dealing with PEDs is more complicated than dealing with Rose’s gambling. That’s because drug use went on for years before it was treated as a major problem and baseball often dragged its feet in dealing with it. I still don’t think the sport has really figured out how to deal with this stuff historically, and it’s that much tougher because we only have partial knowledge of who used drugs. None of those are problems in the Rose case.
For the record, Mantle WAS given a lifetime ban for his post-career casino employment. Thankfully, this was rescinded by Peter Ueberroth.
That’s probably the nail Rose can hang his case on: Mantle (and Willie Mays) got back in - why not Pete? It’s a pretty tenuous nail, though: what Rose did was much more serious, was expressly against the most emphasized rule in the game (as opposed to the penumbras that Bowie Kuhn used to ban Mantle and Mays), and, as I said above, he has done nothing at all (that I know of) to balance the scales since he was banned. His latest endeavor on TLC after leaving his wife for a Playmate probably isn’t helping his case in the court of public opinion, either.
I never get over how eager Pete Rose fans are to make excuses for him and to believe anything he tells them, even if it’s the opposite of what he was telling them ten minutes ago.
For over a decade, Rose insisted that he NEVER bet on baseball and that John Dowd was a damn liar. Rose managed to convince millions of gullible folk (including the pathetic, arrogant Bill James) that he was completely innocent.
Then, all of a sudden, Rose wrote a book in which he said “Yes, I bet on baseball, but I never bet against my team. I know I’m supposed to be sorry about that, but I’m not. Now, reinstate me, put me in the Hall of Fame, and make me a manager again.”
And without a moment’s hesitation, almost all of Pete’s fans have swallowed his latest story. Almost NONE of them have said, “Pete lied to us. He deceived us. He looked us in the eye for years and told us he was innocent. Now we know he was full of shit the whole time. We’ll NEVER forgive him for that.” Almost ALL of them now parrot Rose’s current claim. “He never bet against the Reds, and besides, Hank Aaron used greenies, and besides, Ty Cobb was a racist, and besides…”
The first thing I’d love to ask those fans is, "Who SAYS Pete never bet against his own team? How do YOU know that? The answer is, you DON’T know that. You CAN’T know that. You have ONLY Pete Rose’s word for that, and you should know better than anyone that Pete Rose’s word isn’t worth squat!! He lied to you for 10+ years about betting. Why in the world would you give a PROVEN liar the benefit of the doubt now???
Second, even if it WERE true that Rose only bet on his team to win, he’d STILL deserve to be banned from baseball. Folks, SUPPOSE Pete bet 500 grand on the Reds to beat the Astros, and the Astros won.
Pete would then have been heavily in debt to the wiseguys who run the gambling business. Can you NOT see how dangerous that would be?
Baseball can’t afford to have players or managers with ties to mobsters. That’s why the rules against gambling are SO clear and so completely justified.
Pete Rose knew how serious an offense he was committing, but he did it anyway. There is no way he should EVER be allowed to work in baseball in any capacity ever again.
That said, I’m fine with giving him his plaque in Cooperstown. Preferably posthumously.
Granted, granted, and granted. Doesn’t that logically lead us to a lifetime ban on any player who tests positive for a banned substance? Yeah, drug abuse went on that we didn’t catch, and certainly there must have been instances of gambling that weren’t caught, as well.
I’m not, I say again for the record, a Pete Rose fan, and of course he lied like a rug. So did Braun, of course, and so on. Marley gets more to the heart of the discussion I’m interested in, which is : was Pete’s gambling so much more damaging to the integrity of the game than Braun’s (for example, or name your own favorite offender, if you like) PEDS, why or why not? Certainly the potential for tremendous abuse and damage by gambling is evident. Perhaps it was realized in Rose’s case, but if so I’ve never seen evidence (maybe due to the afore-mentioned plea-bargain). If it was only a potential and never realized, does that matter in the case of Rose’s punishment?
They can do that if the union agrees to it. I’m not opposed to it, but I don’t know if they’ll ever get there for a single positive test. Of course Rose also wasn’t banned for a single bet.
Given that baseball’s rules were adopted after several players agreed to throw the World Series, it sure is.
I’ve said this a few times already, but no, it doesn’t. This is not a situation where it makes sense to split hairs.
What then of StusBlus mention of the Mantle/Mays ban for working in casinos as greeters? Splitting hairs? Or not?
Very different, and stupid on the part of MLB.
The commissioner took a lot of heat for that, which is natural given the immense popularity of Mantle and Mays.
Unlike Marley, I’m not at all sure he was wrong to do so. I don’t know what kind of characters were associated with the casinos that hired them. MAYBE it was perfectly innocent, but MAYBE their jobs put them in close contact with Mafia goons who could have pumped them for information or used them to get closer to active players.
Most major casinos today are owned by multinational hotel corporations, but that wasn’t always the case, and the commissioner had very valid reasons to be leery.
Munch:
Don’t be daft, Munch. You’re listing players who have been caught since the official, agreed-upon between MLB and the MLBPA, testing program became official and went live, and counting their numbers only in the given season up to when they were caught. The reasonably credible allegations of PED use in pre-testing-program years involve a lot more people and a lot more homers, before the possibility of getting caught and banned entered into their behavioral patterns.
Yes, I am - sorry that it was a bit misleadingly labeled.
The point is that players who used PEDs span a wide range of player-types, including contact hitters, base-running specialists, and relief pitchers (which weren’t listed). “PED users have inflated numbers” is thus a grossly misinformed statement that glosses over how widespread the issue was, and not just centralized on power hitters, since the most common use of PEDs wasn’t to beef up, it was to recover from injury.
Munch:
Still doesn’t change the fact that power numbers in the late 1990’s-early 2000’s rocketed to unprecedented levels, and this coincided with credible allegations (and in some cases, confessions) of PED use. The fact that it didn’t help Neifi Perez hit home runs doesn’t mean it didn’t help Canseco, McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmiero, Giambi, Ramirez and Rodriguez hit more home runs than they would have without them.
They could vote Rose in after he’s dead, no problem. He’s only under a lifetime ban, after all, which I would guess is only for his life, not anyone else’s. 
AFAIK, Rose has never shown a bit of contrition about betting on baseball. Until and unless he does that, he gets no sympathy from me. When criminals go in front of the judge asking to have their records expunged, they tell the judge how sorry they are etc. Rose hasn’t done anything like that. To hell with him.
As for the PED players, I’ve come around to letting them into the HoF because management willingly turned a blind eye to their transgressions.
Did they? Doesn’t look like they’re all that much different now than they were during that period. Link
Sure. And the Mitchell Report tells us that PEDs were so widespread that the pitchers were doing them as well. And 50 years of amphetamine use tells us that season-long endurance is now going to be a thing of the past - do we erase Cal Ripken’s streak from the books because he played in an era in which “everyone” was using greenies? Of course not - we look at these individual periods in baseball’s history within their proper context, and stop with the righteous indignation that PED use “ruined” baseball. Baseball has forever been a dirty sport, from the players on the field to the owners in their suites. It’s also an incredibly colorful game - so why only look at it through rose-tinted glasses?
Except for when it was all white, which gave those players the edge of crappier competition.