Should Pete Rose be allowed back in baseball?

[Bullajami]

He had runners betting for him. He could bet against his own grandma and no one would know.

The bookie and both runners testified that the bookie knew the bets were from Rose. The bookie would not extend $2K/bet credit or $50K settle up figure to either of the runners, only to Rose.

The bookie also testified that his only MLB action was from Rose and his runners. I don't regard that as very credible, however, considering he would not want to admit to anything more than he had or sick the investigators on more of his clients.

[ryanXL977]

anyone can manage a baseball team

If he was black no one here would support him to be allowed to manage

unreal

i dont think anyone can manage a baseball team
i think anyone can coach an nfl team

[Bet Shooter]

He had runners betting for him. He could bet against his own grandma and no one would know.

Well you can't have it both ways. It's either his grandma or:

"So then the bookie knows, 'Well, Rose is not betting tonight.' You can imagine how quickly that traveled." "

I would venture to guess that everyone knew who bet and on what games and for how much money! Especially the kind of money he was throwing around. If he lost over 200K, someone would be paying attention.

[losturmarbles]

...
As far as the morality of wagering on sports, he was wrong. Once he decided to wager on sports he lost his integrity. There is no gray area with a persons integrity. Someone in his position would have to go above and beyond what the rest of us would have to do to maintain integrity in the eyes of our peers. That is where he failed.
...

I agree with you 100%

... However, the games Rose didn't have a wager down on his Reds was an easy signal to others, especially those who were knowingly taking his wagers. If Rose isn't betting on the Reds tonight, what does that say? Does Pete know something about his own team, maybe he's going to give Barry Larkin the night off, maybe he's already decided that John Franco needs a day off from throwing?

OK, I'll cede you that point. But they still wouldnt know for sure anything. It's not like rose bets = reds wins and rose doesnt bet = reds lose. But im sure the bookie was probably influenced on the games by whether or not rose bet or how much, etc. So in that regard, you have a point.

Overall I agree with you, that if you don't let Rose in you need to also exclude the steroids abusers. The problem is that for some of the players, Mark McGwire for example, steroids weren't against the MLB rules while he was playing and gambling on baseball was. Why should McGwire be punished for breaking a rule that wasn't even a rule when he broke it? The two actions should be judged separately.

Welcome to the site by the way

I agree. Rules are rules and the two should be judged separately. But it should be noted when Rose accepted being placed on baseball’s ineligible list, he was still eligible to be in the Hall of Fame. It wasn't until a year and a half later the Hall of Fame decided to ban everyone on the ineligible list. (basically in response to Rose and how he tainted the MLB image) Now with the steroid abusers, MLB or Hall of Fame is scared to punish them in the same fashion because MLB was complicit with the abuse.

Thanks for the warm reception (everyone)