I don't care either way. But for anyone that believes Pete should be in the Hall Of Fame, they should direct their anger at the Hall. It was their ruling that anyone banned from baseball is ineligible for admission to the Hall. I think commissioner Manfred would love to get rid of this headache and put it in the lap of the Hall's board of directors. At the time baseball might have been behind the Hall's decision but I think they would stand down if the HOF changed direction.
As a side note, the reason I no longer care about sports is in my advanced years I've come to realize that the overwhelming majority of athletes and owners only see fans as dollar signs and don't give a hoot about us.

Look maybe he would've fared better off if and if he(pete) would have chewed on someones ear, like tyson or had a sex change (jenner) to avoid trouble.

Pete Rose was a great player but he struck out when he decided to bet on games. He knew what would happen if he got caught and he still did it.
James

For me the steriod problem permanently ruined the Baseballs record books. Lots of players over the years did bad things and Poor Pete has to pay the dues.

If you read Manfred's statement, he basically put it in the lap of the HOF.

"In fact, in my view, the considerations that should drive a decision on whether an individual should be allowed to work in Baseball are not the same as those that should drive a decision on Hall of Fame eligibility. Indeed, in considering Mr. Rose’s application for reinstatement, I, as Commissioner of Baseball, must determine the risk that Mr. Rose will commit a violation of rules (most significantly Rule 21) following his reinstatement that may impact the integrity of the game. By contrast, the issue of whether Mr. Rose should be eligible for Hall of Fame election under the bylaws of that organization presents an entirely different policy determination that is focused on a range of considerations distinct from the more narrow question before me whether I believe that Mr. Rose’s reinstatement would be consonant with the policy rationale underlying Rule 21. Thus, any debate over Mr. Rose’s eligibility for the Hall of Fame is one that must take place in a different forum."

I would agree with Manfred's assessment. I would not want him in baseball today, but he should get officially recognized in the Hall.

Questions:

1) Was there any proof that Rose bet on games he actually played in, or managed?

2) If he did, did he EVER bet on the other team, or bet a point spread for his team?

If either one is true, he should remain banned for life.

If neither is true, and he ONLY bet on his team to win, and without a point spread, I don't see a problem.

My guess is that he DID sometimes bet on the opposing team that he was playing, or point spreads for his own team, otherwise they wouldn't have been so harsh.

Mike

MLB investigated, had evidence and Rose admitted he bet on his own team to win while he was a player/manager. The rule he violated reads as follows:

"Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Rose had a duty to perform as Player/Manager. I don't see any argument, those were the rules and he violated them.

Rose admitted to betting on his team as both player and manager but only after he knew MLB had proof of both.
There are no point spreads on betting in baseball only a money line. Ex. you have to lay 9 to win 5 if betting on the favorite or 5 to win 8 if betting the dog.