Even if he did bet on his team every night, the amount of the bet would then matter. Unless it was constant every time.

I think it hurts his case. Even if we take Pete at his word (unwise, as David says), and even if he did bet the same amount every night, he was still in clear violation of the rules of baseball.

Funny thing about this: the best thing Pete could have done to increase his betting odds was to bench himself. He was a terrible player the last few years of his career; a first baseman with a low batting average, no power and no speed. He kept himself in the lineup at signifcant cost to his team, just so he could catch Ty Cobb.

Another point is that the fact he had money riding on each game only makes it more likely that he would make decisions to maximize the short term payoff, ie winning at the moment and causing damage to his team's long term prospects (ie using a relief ace suboptimally) as human beings generally do a pretty bad job of properly discounting future events.

I don't know whether it will help him or hurt him, but I'm not sure anything would be more Pete Rose-like than to bet on his team whether they were likely to win or not.

There is no case. Shoeless Joe Jackson has a case. Pete Rose just has guilt.

It does not really matter what Pete did or did not do outside of playing baseball. Charlie Hustle was one of the top players ever in the game and should never have been banned from baseball in the first place. His stats speak for themselves as do the many highlight reels of his 110 percent night in night out efforts. Let him back!

Mark,

Sorry, but his actions do matter. We have a saying in the military "One oh $#it wipes out a whole stack of atta-boys." Pete understood everyday of his career that betting on baseball would result in a permanent ban. If you believe that his gambling magically started after he stopped playing I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. More than once during his career Rose had been warned by team execs (Reds and Phillies) about rumors of gambling.

Why is anyone taking Rose at face value here? He's continuing the pattern of half truths and omissions that is common with compulsive gamblers. And did you notice that his admission of betting on games involving his own team comes with a little "so that can't be so bad and by the way can I get the ban lifted and how about a shot at a spot in the Hall of Fame?"

They should consider letting him into the Hall once he's dead.

The next time one of you scribes talks to him, ask him if he bet on the Reds to win when either Gullickson or Soto pitched. According to someone I talked to who was in the middle of the Dowd investigation, he bet on the Reds to lose when either of them was pitching, they just couldn't get enough confirmations of it to put it in the report. He's a scumbag.

I have been a Pete Rose fan over the years since the investigation and ban took place. Because he was such a great player, I wanted to believe him that he never beat on baseball even when the evidence said otherwise. Now, the more the man opens his mouth the less I respect him! I think Baseball should give him a partial reinstatement. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the ban prevents him from attending games, working in baseball, etc.. I say let him attend games, let him work for baseball in a coaches role with as little responsibilty as possible. As for the HofF and becoming a Manager for a Major League team.. No Way! The man cannot be trusted!

David, why have him back in any role? He committed the most grevious sin in baseball: wagering on games in which he had a duty to perform. Every clubhouse has a sign saying that that is The No-No. Betting on your team (either for or against) automatically puts you on the permanently ineligible list. Pete essentially banned himself.

(I believe he can attend games, if he buys a ticket.)

Further, his accomplishments should not be taken into account. Are we going to have a double standard because he's the all-time hits leader? If Joe Shmoe also bets on his team, but only plays 2 years, he gets banned but Pete doesn't. Does that mean the star high-school quarterback gets to run wild, but it's ok, because he's the all-time state passing leader? I want little kids asking their dads "Why isn't Pete Rose in the HoF?" "Because he broke the rules, and when you break the rules, there are consequences."

Pete Rose is a little, little man. He does not deserve this much attention.

Larry

largebill, If you hold one man responsible for his addiction then you must say the same of all men and their addictions. I don't think I would want my kids to emulate The Babe and his extracurricular activities or all the players who abuse tobacco, alcohol and various drugs for "pain" or "enhancement" Have you seen Jim Leyland in the dugout? What about hall of famer Gaylord Perry and the banned "spitball. Doc Ellis threw a no hitter while high on LSD but it is still in the record books. The Bronx Bombers were drunk most of the time. Mickey Mantle died young mainly from alcoholism while playing baseball and is in the hall of fame. Just because gambling was banned from baseball back in 1919 does not make it a worse addiction than the others. It is purely selective.