[nolemmings]

I truly don't mean to be crass, but wouldn't this same thinking apply to the Black Sox? Landis made an example of them and basically banned them after the fact (regardless of their varying levels of guilt). Just curious...

I don't follow this at all. Landis investigated while the allegations of fixing were still fresh, not "after the fact". He was hired because of the Black Sox scandal. Moreover, players had been banned before the Black Sox scandal---banned, not suspended. The Black Sox can maybe argue they were acquitted and that ought to count for something (an unimpressive argument IMO) or that enforcement was spotty, but the concerns that baseball had with gambling were long-established and serious before that scandal. It was prominently displayed that no betting was allowed. They can hardly complain they had no idea what they were getting into as far as punishment was concerned.
Check the background on these cards: --"No.... Betting"


As for Rose, the warning about being permanently banned was posted in the clubhouse of every professional team for whom he ever played. That punishment is hardly ex post facto, which if course is a criminal law precept that has marginal if any application to entry into a place of honor. The theory behind the doctrine is that people should know what "punishment" might await them if they engage in certain conduct so they can make informed decisions and assess the penalties of risky or wrongful behavior. IMO, it is lame to argue that Rose knew he could be permanently banned from baseball if he gambled as a player or manager but that he never would have taken that risk if he also knew that it could make him automatically ineligible for the Hall of Fame.

Keep him out.


EDITED TO ADD: It also should be remembered that a) Rose agreed to a lifetime ban; and b) he continued to lie for years that he had bet on baseball. Each of these further supports a denial of his request.