Last night, ESPN had a mock trial regarding Pete Rose's eligibility of baseball's Hall Of Fame.

Johnnie Cochran represented Pete and Alan Dershowitz was the "prosecutor" for baseball. About a dozen sports legends acted as "witnesses" and a plethora of other well known baseball people were used.

In the end, the jury voted 8-4 that Pete should be eligible. And like the 8, I agree.

Bill Lee summed it up nicely. Pete was a bad gambler. Furthermore, Pete was even a worse manager. Pete could not have affected the outcome of a game as manager on his best day. So, it's inconceivable to think that even if he did bet on the game, he had any kind of skill to change the outcome.

Nobody seriously suggests Pete bet AGAINST the Reds. That has never been shown.

Eight players from the the 1919 Chicago White Sox were banned for life from baseball for accepting money to blow the world series (against the reds...go figger). Shoeless Joe Jackson played a spectacular series and has HOF credentials. But he's been banned.

Pete Rose never took money to blow a game. Pete never booted a ball or took a strike right down the middle with men on base. Especially a world series. I don't see how the punishment can be the same no matter if you believe the Dowd report or not.

Baseball concluded that Pete never bet on baseball and said he would be eligible for reinstatement in one year. Faye Vincent changed that rule right after Bart Giamatti died. So, if you beleive Pete bet on baseball, who's worse? The liar or the cheater?

So, I'm curious to see what everybody else on here thinks about it.

He could hit, you must acquit!

Or

He bet on the game, there's no Hall Of Fame!

DaytonRocker - I don't think your poll question turned out right. PM it to me & I will edit your poll to reflect the question and reopen this thread. Thanks

REOPENED!

FYI to everyone, if you preview a poll before making it public, the forum software takes away the poll question. If you do make a poll and chose to preview it, make sure you retype your question before making it public. This will be fixed in our upgrade. I apologize if this causes anyone any trouble in the meantime.

Pete Rose is one of the best baseball players ever. That's the purpose of the hall of fame not to reward being a good guy but being a good baseball player.

Gambling attacks the integrity of the game. A manager who bets on his own team could be influenced to sacrifice long run team concerns in pursuit of winning just that one game.

Pete Rose should most definately be allowed into the Hall of Fame. He is the all time leader for games played (3,562), at bats (14,053), and hits (4,256). So he bet on baseball and got caught. So what? Its the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Morality Hall of Fame.

Cochranisms...too funny.

Unless they can prove he bet on baseball, he should be in.

There is nothing in the rules excluding him (i.e. ethics requirements) except that he is on the "banned list".

His numbers belong in the hall of fame. Gambling threatens the profits of baseball, but the sport is strong enough to survive Pete Rose's bets.

His omission detracts from the game. The sport really can't claim to rigidly stick to a squeaky clean image when it let's Steve Howe and Daryl Strawberry back into the league after lord knows how many suspensions and relapses.

Let him in. Let him have his say in Cooperstown for one day and keep him out of the game.

Integrity? What would that be? Changing the rules on Pete a year later after signing an agreement? Allowing wife beaters and drug addicts to play? Allowing players to be juiced up on steroids? Three game suspensions after getting caught corking bats?

Regardless of what you may think about Pete, Major League Baseball isn't a saint here. Pete's done nothing to harm the integrity of the game because the commissioner's office has done that on it's own thank-you-very-much. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

Again, if Pete had taken money to throw a game and booted some balls, took a few strikes, or something along those lines, there could hardly be any dispute. That's what some of the 1919 White Sox did.

Rule 21(d) is what Pete was banned for. But the Rose/Giamatti agreement said he could apply for reinstatement in one year. MLB changed that after signing the agreement. They lied.

But Rule 5 provides that voting shall be based on a player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which he played. Somehow, this rule gets ignored. Why the double standard?

Babe Ruth was a drunk and a womanizer
Ty Cobb was an idiot who had no sportsmanship or character
John Mcgraw abused umpires
Cap Anson was an avowed racist
Gaylord Perry cheated his entire career by doctoring baseballs
Leo Durocher was a gambler
Steve Howe was allowed back in the game after being suspended for drug use 4 times

This is sportsmanship, integrity, and character? This has become a battle between Pete and the commissioner's office that punishes the fans.

There is only one person who is perfect and without sin. And he's not even in the Hall.