Posted By:
Mike (18colt)I'll preface what I'm going to say with the following: I was a huge fan of Rose during his playing days, and a huge collector of his cards. I am still a fan of Pete Rose.
Now onto my two cents. . . .
1) Someone in an early post said that Rose was banned from baseball for gambling. At least get the facts straight and don't show your ignorance. Rose was not banned for betting on baseball. Read the agreement that Rose signed. It's readily available on-line.
2) John Dowd did an amazing job compiling numerous exhibits which allegedly portray Rose as a gambler on baseball games. One question that still bugs me about the Dowd Report -- if the evidence was so concrete and airtight, and if it's so obvious that Rose bet on baseball, why didn't MLB ban Rose for gambling? If you read the report (it's really, really long), and reread it, and analyze it enough, you start finding reasons why Rose could not be banned without his own confession. The investigation against Rose in the late 1980s wasn't a criminal investigation -- MLB did not have "reasonable doubt" to worry about, so if MLB was sure Rose gambled on baseball, they could've banned him for it without worry. So why didn't they?
3) The confession by Rose that he bet on baseball -- is it real? Let's make some assumptions for a moment for the sake of this example. Let's assume that Rose has been truthful for the last 14 years about not wagering on the game. Let's assume that the Dowd Report couldn't conclusively prove that Rose bet on baseball, and that's why he wasn't banned for gambling. Rose applies for reinstatement, and gets ignored for years. He's told that he must change his ways and confess to gambling before any action will be taken by MLB. So what are Rose's options based on these assumptions? He either maintains his innocence, and never gets back into the game, or he admits guilt, so the process can move forward and he can potentially get back into baseball. For someone that loves the game of baseball as much as Rose does, what would you choose? The choice is simple -- admit guilt, and try to get back into the game. Perhaps this is what Rose is doing now.
4) This is a question -- if Rose admitted to gambling on baseball to Bud Selig in November of 2002, how did this information not leak out to the press? National security sometimes isn't this airtight.
5) Did Mike Schmidt know of Rose's alleged transgressions this past year as he lobbied the commissioner's office on Rose's behalf?
6) How would the Rose situation be different today if Bart Giamatti hadn't died days after banning Rose? Was it appropriate for Giamatti to publically comment on his opinion of Rose's innocence or guilt after banning him (he said Rose bet on baseball - if so, then why didn't he ban him for gambling as noted in an above point)?
7) Fergie Jenkins pitching with cocaine coarsing through his veins would have an adverse effect on his performance. He hurt his team that game (or games), probably costing his teams some wins. Is this better for the game than if Rose had gambled on his team to win?
8) How many home runs did Sammy Sosa hit with his corked bat? We'll never know, but if he wasn't a popular star player, would his suspension have lasted longer?
9) Players on steroids. Here's a good question -- let's say that Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron's career home run record. After his playing days, as a team's batting coach or strength & conditioning coach, MLB for whatever reason has to investigate him for potentially supplying his players with an illegal supplement that enhances performance. If during the investigation, it's found that Bonds for the last 8 seasons of his career used anabolic steroids, will anything be done concerning his record? His HOF candidacy? Will he be banned for tarnishing the image of the game?
10) Was Joe Jackson given a lifetime ban or is he permanently ineligible? If it's a lifetime ban, he should be eligible for the HOF today. If it's permanently ineligible, he currently can't get in. Plus, didn't he give the money back, played well in the WS, and got banned because he knew of the fix but didn't do anything about it (like knowing a bank robbery is going to take place, not taking part in the robbery, but still being held accountable)?
11) Separating the ban and the HOF eligibility, when Rose was banned, he was still eligible for the HOF. The HOF changed their rules after the fact. If Rose wanted to get in badly enough, he could with a legal challenge (it would cost him a lot of money and ultimately turn away most of his remaining fans, but he'd get in - and please, the lawyers out there, don't pursue this argument).
12) Final point. If you consider everything that Rose has done for the game as a player and what he means to a lot of his fans and baseball's fans, would those of you that want him "to rot" be content with the following -- Rose gets reinstated, is made eligible for the HOF, but cannot take a position where he steps onto the field during a game (no manager, no base coach, etc.)? Keep in mind that if he becomes eligible for the HOF again, there's no guarantee that the writers who vote will vote him in (and then it'll be up to the Veterans Committee, who may not ever vote him in while he's still alive).
Thanks for your time. Just remember, these are my opinions, and the questions I posed are questions. No need to jump down my throat if you disagree. Take the assumptions I made for what they are, and keep things in their context.
Have a nice day! 
PS: since this is a vintage card forum, I'll ask a question -- how tough are E102 cards to find? (I've seen www.caramel-cards.com, but want more opinions)