Good for Pete, writing it himself.

Hard to get too excited about his sins now that baseball is run by the gambling interests

I'd give pretty good odds that Manfred will consider it.

Hard to get too excited about his sins now that baseball is run by the gambling interests

I hear this a lot and don't really get it? It's not that baseball has a moral stance against gambling, it doesn't want people involved in the game to be gambling. If Pete had bet on football or waited until he retired, he'd be in the Hall right now.

Pete Rose enters the casino

Ohio becomes the latest state to legalize sports betting (well, after Maryland even sooner) on Jan. 1.
Pete has been tapped to place the first wager at the Hard Rock Sportsbook.

Anthony Munoz and Marty Brennaman also are slated to be on hand for the festivities.

I was about 15 years old when Pete Rose was banned from MLB, and I did not fully appreciate the gravity of a "lifetime" ban.

I wonder: If you suspend disbelief, and assume Rose had done the same things wrong leading up to his being caught gambling on baseball while managing the Reds...what would an alternative universe have looked like where Rose could have responded in a smarter or more effective way, and had the next 33 years of his life be so much better?

What if he had hired a really good set of lawyers, and negotiated something less draconian?

What if he had expressed humility, and acknowledged that he broke the cardinal rule of sports, that he had a serious gambling addiction, and that he needed to get a lot of help immediately?

What if he had taken the next 20-30 years and lived a different lifestyle?

Or, did it basically not matter as soon as he got caught gambling on baseball while managing, because it is simply the one rule you cannot break, no matter how repentant you are in the decades afterwards?

Add another 10 years to Pete’s permanent ban for his tacky stationery!

I was about 15 years old when Pete Rose was banned from MLB, and I did not fully appreciate the gravity of a "lifetime" ban.

Not a lifetime, but a permanent one.

Or, did it basically not matter as soon as he got caught gambling on baseball while managing, because it is simply the one rule you cannot break, no matter how repentant you are in the decades afterwards?

I think one of the commishes might have given him a chance had he, at any point, behaved a little differently.

I spoke with Rose on his 80th birthday, and was surprised he was willing to address the gambling issue.

he basically suggested that once he was no longer a player, he became a little bored and needed something else as a substitute adrenalin rush.

if only Red Bull had been around back then !

It's interesting that he tried this same tack a few years ago, but doesn't seem to have tried asking the Hall to rescind its bar on expelled players. If I recall correctly, MLB has said they take no position on who the Hall inducts.

On the surface, this is a pretty good letter. It sounds sincere and contrite, and also reads like his own words rather than something carefully crafted by a law firm.

But it doesn't really seem in line with Pete Rose's actions over the past 30 years. He says "What helped set me down the right path was..." but I haven't seen any evidence that he ever got on the right path (or even a different path).

#5 It's widely reported that Rose was offered 7 years. He sued because he misunderstood how the legal process would play out and didn't want to make the admission that the deal required him to make.

3. Yes, that's what they say. You, players,umpires, managers - don't sully our game with gambling ! Meanwhile I will gladly take gambling interests money - the same guys you would make your bets with - to line my pockets. I see no difference frankly. The Kama sutra position you choose when lying with a gambler shouldn't determine whether you are a good fellow.

#5: Sure, lots of things could have turned out differently. With better lawyers, he probably gets a better deal to begin with or at least a better understanding of the consequences of the one he signed and maybe he doesn't accept and would have been able to successfully challenge in front of an arbitrator or the courts. Maybe just reach out to the HoF to understand what they were likely to do. Better PR (or god forbid, genuine contrition) afterwards would have helped and maybe he's reinstated after 25 years or something.

But although he had some "defenders," nobody was really all that eager to go to bat for him with the HoF or challenge the HoF's decision to omit banned players. To the extent that HoF voters were annoyed, they were mainly annoyed that they were denied the chance to show him how little they thought of him now. If, I dunno, Ernie Banks and Joe Morgan and Sparky and Musial and Jerome Holtzman had gone to the HoF saying they should give Rose a shot, maybe they would have.

Similarly nobody's really stepped up for Bonds et al either. Much like that situation, most folks are stuck both wishing it had never happened but, since it did, now wishing it would just be forgotten. And I don't think the HoF misses Rose one little bit and while he'd still draw a nice crowd probably, peak Rose attendance was probably a long time ago and they held the line then, I don't think they're gonna budge now. Maybe some time after he's dead.

On the surface, this is a pretty good letter. It sounds sincere and contrite, and also reads like his own words rather than something carefully crafted by a law firm.

When I read this the other day, that was my reaction also. It feels like something sincere, but as you then mention his actions haven't always matched his word. I'm in the camp that states ban him from participating in any management involved with the game, but let him be recognized as the player he was by the fans that love him, the hall that he deserves to be in, etc. He should just never have a single situation where he can coach ever again. But I'm also a guy who would put Schilling in the hof, would not remove OJ Simpson from the NFL hof and if I though Allen was hof worthy would put him in also. Or If Cap Anson came up for a vote, would put him in also. Basically for a sports hof, it's what you did on the field that matters 90%.

would not remove OJ Simpson from the NFL hof

Would you vote for him if the murders predated his election?

I am very OK with the Baseball Hall of Fame welcoming Pete Rose with open arms ... the second his corpse has been planted in the cold earth.
Not dead yet?
OK, too bad, come back later.

Would you vote for him if the murders predated his election?

Probably... maybe, honestly I don't know. He's a hof running back, arguably one of the two best to ever play his position, it's hard to keep someone like that out of the history books. When I think of the hof, I don't really think about character as much how important and dominant this player was at playing the game. People will always know about his crimes but to remove his accomplishments seems like lying about history. (or in this hypothetical, just ignoring it) I think if the crimes predated his election, the plaques might mention it, although since he wasn't actually found guilty, it's hard to even justify that take. (and I think he was found guilty in civil court, so maybe that is enough to at least get a mention on the plaque.)

I don't think the HoF misses Rose one little bit and while he'd still draw a nice crowd probably

he has been signing autographs at a Cooperstown baseball card shop about 2 blocks from the HOF almost every year of the past few decades.

so if you want a Rose autograph, there have been endless chances (and even more in Las Vegas, where he is easily findable on the Strip).

now, if you're a big fan of his and want to celebrate his induction, plaque, etc - then yes, none of that is good enough.

what makes anyone think he wrote it? You have his word for it, that's nice.
Put him in the hall or not. It's entertainment; I could care less if the players gambled on it themselves.

If he got crappy legal advice, or, what also happens, he got good legal advice which his ego and stupidity prevented him from following, that's unfortunate.
But, given all the tragedy in the world, it's nice he's lived to be 81; I knew plenty who didn't.

If he were looking for redemption, he should have become heavily involved with gambler's anonymous; done PSA's and talked about how he screwed up (even if deep down he didn't believe it). People love a good redemption story; it's a great narrative. Instead, he portrayed himself as the victim, often the result of ego and stupidity. Rose may be a highly intelligent person, anyone can fall victim to ego and stupidity.

I don't think the HOF or any one or institution derives (or, maybe they do arrogate) integrity from keeping him out of the hall. They already lack integrity.

Also, is OJ one of the top one or two backs? I would think Sanders, Brown and Payton at least are ahead of him. 49er's million dollar backfield, way before my time, but Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenny (not enough bulk to career) and John Henry Johnson (toughest of all time; LA Times story years ago quoted linebacker John Reger as to how the defense would gang tackle him to get him out of the game; also the first back to gain 1K yards after 30 years of age; did it 2x; Riggins did it next; not enough bulk to career); different eras also.

I do agree OJ belongs in hall; notwithstanding being found liable in a civil. Unsurprisingly, Schilling doesn't get elected after provoking the electorate. Maybe he likes to feel like a martyr, that the mainstream media is out to get him. Ego and stupidity again; if someone advised him to shut his trap for a year or two, it certainly sound advice he disregarded (unquestionably a HOF pitcher, though).

Adrenalin rush is an interesting explanation; simple, possibly true.

On the plus side, maybe the hope of getting into the hall keeps him alive.

But, his problems don't add up to a hill of beans in this crazy mixed up world.

I know it's been discussed before, but the HOF is wholly separate from MLB, right? It's the HOF that hasn't put Pete on their ballot, Manfred has nothing to do with it.

I know it's been discussed before, but the HOF is wholly separate from MLB, right? It's the HOF that hasn't put Pete on their ballot, Manfred has nothing to do with it.

Yes and no. When Pete was put on the permanently ineligible list, the Hall determined that anyone who was on the list would not be eligible for election.

If MLB removed him from the list, he then would be eligible for consideration by the VC unless the Hall took a separate step to keep him out.

3. Yes, that's what they say. You, players,umpires, managers - don't sully our game with gambling ! Meanwhile I will gladly take gambling interests money - the same guys you would make your bets with - to line my pockets. I see no difference frankly. The Kama sutra position you choose when lying with a gambler shouldn't determine whether you are a good fellow.


You're ignoring the key element. Rose was permanently banned because he bet on games in he had A DUTY TO PERFORM. All the other stuff with MLB and gambling is sleazy, but doesn't affect the integrity of the contest on the field.

If anything, with more and more money being wagered on the games, MLB needs to be even stricter on players and managers gambling. This isn't an issue of morals; it's about protecting their product.

#### this guy. Betting on baseball is the least of his transgressions.

But although he had some "defenders," nobody was really all that eager to go to bat for him with the HoF or challenge the HoF's decision to omit banned players.

Rose had Morgan in his corner. But as influential as Morgan was, it wasn't enough.

Maybe Bench going to bat for Rose would help, but that doesn't look likely. A couple of years ago, Bench said he didn't see Rose getting in bc he hadn't accepted the consequences of his gambling. Always the one to take the high road, Rose said Bench wouldn't be in the HOF without Rose batting in front of him.

Rose had Morgan in his corner. But as influential as Morgan was, it wasn't enough.

The best thing for him could have been Bob Feller's death, but Rose failed to capitalize on it.

22. I'm not missing the point. I just don't think what he did can possibly merit a banishment when they are now taking money from bookies. Same for Shoeless Joe. Normalizing gambling by saying the world will operate better now that the gamblers are involved is a strange position to me.

26 - Just because airlines sell liquor to passengers doesn't mean that they should re-hire a pilot who was drinking on the job.

Probably... maybe, honestly I don't know. He's a hof running back, arguably one of the two best to ever play his position, it's hard to keep someone like that out of the history books. When I think of the hof, I don't really think about character as much how important and dominant this player was at playing the game. People will always know about his crimes but to remove his accomplishments seems like lying about history. (or in this hypothetical, just ignoring it) I think if the crimes predated his election, the plaques might mention it, although since he wasn't actually found guilty, it's hard to even justify that take. (and I think he was found guilty in civil court, so maybe that is enough to at least get a mention on the plaque.)

If you're worried about people forgetting about Pete Rose, he already has a display in the HOF, I believe (I haven't been myself). At the least there is something on the Big Red Machine. The questions is whether he should be enshrined in the Plaque Room.

This only matters to old white dudes who are going to stay baseball fans anyway. So #### Rose and his whole skeezy life.

Re the OJ Simpson issue -- there's a fundamental difference between the baseball and pro football halls in that the latter has no character clause and even states that as part of its guidelines. They only consider what happened on the field in such cases. The list of PFHoF inductees who wouldn't have gotten a second look from the BBHoF include Tim Mara (who earned a living as a legal bookmaker as well as a team owner), Art Rooney (a heavy gambler who bankrolled his franchise purchase with bets won), Paul Hornung and Alex Karras (who were suspended a year for betting on NFL games), Joe Schmidt and Kenny Stabler and Bobby Layne (who are suspected of betting on and/or -- especially in Stabler's case -- throwing games) and Ray Lewis (who was involved in a murder but got off in a plea bargain reduced charge of Obstruction of Justice). Other players like Lawrence Taylor had a very unsavory reputation off the field, but got in anyway.

That being said, players like Jim Tyrer (murder/suicide) and Darren Sharper (convicted serial rapist) have not gotten in, and it's debatable how much the committee might have looked the other way on OJ Simpson if he hadn't already gotten elected before the murders and kidnappings. All are plenty deserving, with Simpson being a small-hall level player.

Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, Rose can join Shoeless Joe forever on the outside looking in.

22. I'm not missing the point. I just don't think what he did can possibly merit a banishment when they are now taking money from bookies. Same for Shoeless Joe. Normalizing gambling by saying the world will operate better now that the gamblers are involved is a strange position to me.

You seriously can't see a difference between gambling, and gambling on a contest in which you are a participant? Wow.

31: Have relatives in Cincinnati. They don't believe this #### but pretty much everyone else does if you go to a Reds game and ask about Pete Rose. No difference. You get the 'what? I don't get it. It's the same thing"

All the other stuff with MLB and gambling is sleazy, but doesn't affect the integrity of the contest on the field.

We don't know the latter clause. When a team that seemed like they were still in the hunt traded off all their good players ahead of the deadline, we don't know that there wasn't a kickback from sports betting orgs as an incentive to do so.

I mean, that kind of stuff likely isn't happening. But the financial relationship is there now.

#21 And the Hall has specifically said that he'll be treated like anybody else if he comes off the list.

31. It's just a matter of degree. Once the mob or the gambling interests have their teeth in you all kinds of things happen that you said you wouldn't let happen. Gambling has a new PR image but it doesn't change what it fundamentally is.

All the other stuff with MLB and gambling is sleazy, but doesn't affect the integrity of the contest on the field.

I will die on the hill that the rules around protested games were very quietly stricken from the rule book because Big Gambling wanted them gone. When the game is over, Big Gambling wants it to be OVER and not even potentially subject to a protest hearing that may take days to resolve. It is very much unlike Rob Manfred to make such a significant change without floating a series of trial balloons first.



You seriously can't see a difference between gambling, and gambling on a contest in which you are a participant? Wow.

I see the difference but I think it's a temptation that MLB does not need to be surrounding their players with. I've linked multiple times to a somewhat recent news article on the gambling habits and beliefs of English soccer players that found significant numbers of them said their teammates encouraged them to bet, that they felt like they had to gamble to fit in, and that about 1/3 of respondents said their team's association with sportsbooks encouraged them to place bets themselves.

Not on Ted Lasso's team!

I know Morgan has said Rose should be in but I don't recall Morgan going out of his way to campaign for it. It's one thing to answer the question "do you think Rose should be in the HoF" and, for example, writing an open letter telling the writers not to vote for Bonds and Clemens. If Morgan actively lobbied on Rose's behalf then I stand corrected.

What I'm saying is nobody in baseball "championed" Rose's cause other than Rose. I'm sure there are plenty who think the initial ban was an overreaction or think he has paid the price so "support his induction." But is there anybody willing to lobby for it?

We don't know the latter clause. When a team that seemed like they were still in the hunt traded off all their good players ahead of the deadline, we don't know that there wasn't a kickback from sports betting orgs as an incentive to do so.

I mean, that kind of stuff likely isn't happening. But the financial relationship is there now.

I'm sorry, why would they do that? Bookies take equal money on both sides of a bet. They don't care who wins.

Even if MLB wasn't involved with gambling, someone could still bribe an owner . It's possible. But what kind of bribe are you going to offer a billionaire?

If anything, with more and more money being wagered on the games, MLB needs to be even stricter on players and managers gambling. This isn't an issue of morals; it's about protecting their product.

Snapper nailed this one right on the head with this take.

Yes and no. When Pete was put on the permanently ineligible list, the Hall determined that anyone who was on the list would not be eligible for election.

There may be an argument that Pete could be recognized in the HOF but banned from any employment or affiliation with current teams. But if it's an all or nothing, I'd keep Pete on the permanently ineligible list, since he obviously should be prohibited from working for any team or any player as an agent or having any business ties with any major or minor league team.

Pete fails in the first sentence. He should say "I'm sorry I bet on Reds games that I was managing." Or even better, "I'm sorry I bet on Reds games that I was managing, except when Bill Gullickson pitched, because I didn't trust that guy."

Instead its the vague "baseball games" to lead you to believe it was just some other meaningless games, not the ones in which he had more power than anyone involved.

I'm sorry, why would they do that? Bookies take equal money on both sides of a bet. They don't care who wins.

1985 called, and wants its meme back.

sportsbooks these days take lopsided amounts on one side all the time - those times being when it is confident that the betting public has a misplaced level of respect for one team in the game. now, they're not looking for a 90-10 split, of course, but 60-40 or even 65-35? sure, sometimes.

there was a recent issue with one of the major sportsbooks that had some sort of a near "giveaway" of you win (usually the max is only $25 or so). this no-brainer was LAC's Herbert throws a TD pass. well, he always does - except in this game, where I think he set a record for most passing attempts but no TDs.

social media was ablaze with imbeciles who were convinced that the game was "rigged" so the sportsbook could rake in all that (small amounts of) money.

(first one I remember was "you win if the Jets score a single point!" of course, the Jets got shut out that week. but it being such a Jets-ian occurrence, I don't recall any hue and cry.)

#38 Morgan and Robin Roberts tried to broker a deal -- Eddie Mathews, Bob Feller and Warren Spahn refused to consider any kind of compromise and faced with that kind of firm opposition Morgan's efforts kind of collapsed.

After that one experience Morgan never got involved again.

And this whole episode was triggered by Mike Schmidt's support for Rose in his HOF speech. So he had a few champions.

On the other hand, behind the scenes apparently Tom Seaver played an important role in keeping Rose out. Specifically, by convincing the representative of the trust that owns the hall that the rule that keeps out banned players was a good idea.

And apparently Frank Robinson also quietly lobbied against Rose behind the scenes.

A lot of the key players on both sides are no longer around so I suppose it's possible things could have changed.

With better lawyers, he probably gets a better deal to begin with or at least a better understanding of the consequences of the one he signed and maybe he doesn't accept and would have been able to successfully challenge in front of an arbitrator or the courts.

Don't blame the lawyers. Rose took the permanent ban deal rather than participate in a hearing before the Commissioner, when he would have been absolutely shredded on cross-examination. Remember, Rose was then denying he had ever bet on baseball, even though there was overwhelming evidence that he did.

Rose took the deal because he apparently thought ‘permanent’ might not be forever, it was uncertain what the HoF would do, and he didn’t want everyone to see how strong MLB’s case was. It was probably his best option.

On the surface, this is a pretty good letter. It sounds sincere and contrite, and also reads like his own words rather than something carefully crafted by a law firm.

The letter was first reported by TMZ, which may suggest that Rose was compensated for providing it to them, which probably wouldn’t surprise anyone.

sportsbooks these days take lopsided amounts on one side all the time - those times being when it is confident that the betting public has a misplaced level of respect for one team in the game. now, they're not looking for a 90-10 split, of course, but 60-40 or even 65-35? sure, sometimes.

I've used this example for people before. If I as a random fan walked into a sports book and placed a $1 million bet on a football game this weekend (it's unlikely anyone would take that, but roll with it) the point spread almost certainly doesn't change as a result of my bet, not even a half point. Because to them, I am a nobody. On the other hand, a known sharp could walk into the same book and place a $5K bet on the same team and they'd move the spread based on that one bet.

The books would rather see the money 60-40 if the sharp money is on the 40 than move the line to try to get it back towards 50-50 and give the sharps a chance to get even more money down at even better odds.

sportsbooks these days take lopsided amounts on one side all the time - those times being when it is confident that the betting public has a misplaced level of respect for one team in the game. now, they're not looking for a 90-10 split, of course, but 60-40 or even 65-35? sure, sometimes.

Why would anyone introduce volatility into a guaranteed profit business? This would seem to be the bookie equivalent of getting high on your own supply.

the profit margin for sportsbooks who only act as "the middle man" is remarkably weak - under 5 percent for most sports in NJ, for example.

add in a 51 pct tax rate in states like NY, and the high marketing and customer acquisition costs, and "playing it safe" might leave you with no net revenue at all.
(in fact, that surely would be the case in NY if not for the fire hose of profit that is "parlays" where you need to win every multiple leg of a bet to win. those margins can be as high as 15 to 20 pct, even with the occasional news story about an imbecile who turns $100 into $150,000 or whatever on a 12-team parlay.)

as for "sharp money," they were hitting about 65 pct of the "pros vs Joes" divergence on the NFL in the first 6-7 weeks of the NFL season - but only something like 35 pct in the past several weeks. there is no magic bullet.

the books hire experts to draw their own conclusions about lines. at times, it's understood that there is a line they are comfortable with that seems sure to lure a majority of the money the other way. and to that they say, "bring it on !"

obviously these are somewhat simplified points I'm making.

Let Shoeless Joe set the amount of time Pete has to wait - we're at 102 years and counting

I'm sorry, why would they do that? Bookies take equal money on both sides of a bet. They don't care who wins.

The specific example is different, though. It wasn't a specific game, it was a team selling off their players. A book may have set an over/under for a bad team at 65 games. Maybe they ended up getting a lot of action on the over. The team overperforms and is tracking to win 70. The sports book is going to lose a bunch. So they bribe a GM to trade away the good players in a fire sale and the team only wins 62.

I don't think that would actually happen but that's a reason why.

Don't blame the lawyers. Rose took the permanent ban deal rather than participate in a hearing before the Commissioner, when he would have been absolutely shredded on cross-examination. Remember, Rose was then denying he had ever bet on baseball, even though there was overwhelming evidence that he did.

Rose took the deal because he apparently thought ‘permanent’ might not be forever, it was uncertain what the HoF would do, and he didn’t want everyone to see how strong MLB’s case was. It was probably his best option.

Yeah, he took the deal so that nobody would ever have any proof. And he could keep lying about it for years. I don't feel bad about keeping him out.

The only thing I feel bad about is that when he took the deal there was no rule about keeping off of the HOF ballot. I doubt he gets in, but he probably thought he would. Then after he was banned the hall put the rule in.

The main thing is, though, that despite this letter, he really isn't contrite. As others have said, he could have admitted what he did right away. He could have said (true or not) that he had a gambling addiction and gone to rehab. He could have spoken to groups about the dangers of gambling and addiction. He could have stayed away from casinos.

Would that have been hard for him? Yes. But here's the thing. It's easy to say "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit". It's easy to say because you can never be challenged on it. How about you actually do the hard things that are required? He didn't do them.

And now, at least in my eyes, it's too late. He has shown that he hasn't reformed. He lied about the gambling for years. Then when it was obvious he wasn't getting in, he admitted to it. When that didn't work, he wrote letters saying he was sorry. But not really. He's trying all of the easy methods to get in and none of the hard ones. So it's too late for him.

3. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 14, 2022 at 07:42 PM (#6105526)

... It's not that baseball has a moral stance against gambling, it doesn't want people involved in the game to be gambling.

dingdingding

20. My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo Posted: November 15, 2022 at 08:40 AM (#6105597)
I know it's been discussed before, but the HOF is wholly separate from MLB, right?

- yeah, surrrrrre. in name only dude. they NEVER go against what MLB wants

22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: November 15, 2022 at 09:16 AM (#6105603)
...The Kama sutra position you choose when lying with a gambler shouldn't determine whether you are a good fellow.

- Duke, that is a great line.

You're ignoring the key element. Rose was permanently banned because he bet on games in he had A DUTY TO PERFORM. All the other stuff with MLB and gambling is sleazy, but doesn't affect the integrity of the contest on the field.

If anything, with more and more money being wagered on the games, MLB needs to be even stricter on players and managers gambling. This isn't an issue of morals; it's about protecting their product.

- interesting they don't do nothing else to protect their product, though

- pete HAD good lawyers. sometimes, people don't listen to they lawyers even though they pay them all that money, because the lawyers so interested in law they don't realize the client knows everything there is to know already. Pete figured that if he didn't admit no nothin, he'd get a year ban, then get right back in the game, and anyhow, he'd be elected to the HOF. He is not about to pretend he's sorry about gambling or stop gambling - cmon. it's been 35 or so years. And before the dowd report was taken off the intarnetz, i KNOW i remember all kinds of discussions about the fact that he gambled on baseball as a player TOO but dowd just concentrated on the most recent and more easily provable gambling on baseball as a manager

- the FIRST time a ballplayer/coach/manager bet on even ONE baseball game, the bookies/sportbook got the silly idiot under their thumb forever. which is why the ban has GOT to stay enforced. if manfred lets ol gamblin petey boy offn the hook he just opened the door to justification of anyone else caught gambling

- and of course he is HOF worthy - the whole "character clause" is stupid, but it is there, unfortunately, and especially these days, when everyone believes that what a baseball person does OFF the field is just as important as what he does ON it

And before the dowd report was taken off the intarnetz,

Welcome to DowdReport.com

when everyone believes that what a baseball person does OFF the field is just as important as what he does ON it

Weirdly, the Hall's website still includes the explanatory note, "Rule applies to how the game was played on the field, more so than character off the field," but the Hall doesn't include it in the voting rules.

Voting Rules History

The fact that MLB has chosen to morally taint itself (even further) by getting into bed with gambling, does not whitewash Rose's actions.

Rose deliberately broke a clear rule knowing the penalty, and then chose to lie about it for decades, vilifying the men who told the truth about him at every turn.

I have no sympathy for him.

The fact that MLB is now cozying up with an industry that knowingly and deliberately destroys lives is, in my personal view, worse than what Rose did. But that does not make Rose's actions any less disqualifying.

Welcome to DowdReport.com

The TL:DR version: The low-lifes that Pete hung out with cooperated with Dowd because of their own legal troubles, and provided the when, where & how on his gambling, and their testimony was corroborated by Pete’s own phone and bank records. Pete denied everything but had no explanation for the phone & bank records.