He just turned 76.My name is patterned after his.No hes not my fav player.Willie Stargell is.And my Pirates of the 70s were my team-which Rose killed a number of times.He needs to be in HOF.He did a despicable thing.Gambling is a disease like alcoholism & drug addiction.

Gambling may be a disease. Lying is not. At this point, his constant lying about virtually everything to do with his case is what's keeping him on the ineligible list.

I've been on the "time to forgive Pete and let him in the HOF" bandwagon time after time over the years, and every time he's turned around and had yet another lie exposed. He's never come completely clean, and I don't think he ever will. He'll never see his name on a HOF plaque in his lifetime.

Nor, at this point, do I think he ever should.

While I agree with you that he hasn't helped his case by continually lying and contradicting himself, I'm not at all sold on the notion that if he'd come clean at some point, he'd be in. I feel like it would have just been a ploy by MLB - if he confessed, it would have been "HA! WE KNEW IT!! SUCKER!!" and then hang him out to dry.

Either way, it should be up to the voters. If the Hall is going to have a rule that they won't allow players under ban to be inducted, then MLB needs to lift these bans so voters can decide. MLB has allowed voters to be the moral authority on PED users, so why not gamblers too?

The HOF instituted the "ineligible players cannot be on the ballot" rule after Rose was banned. MLB is under no obligation to lift their ban because the HOF changed their rules.

None of the PED suspects on the HOF ballot were banned by MLB. So your argument isn't really relevant.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/15/2017 9:04:00 PM (view original):
The HOF instituted the "ineligible players cannot be on the ballot" rule after Rose was banned. MLB is under no obligation to lift their ban because the HOF changed their rules.

None of the PED suspects on the HOF ballot were banned by MLB. So your argument isn't really relevant.

My point is, guys like Bonds and Clemens aren't getting a free pass from voters, so if you make Rose eligible for induction, it's not a lock he gets in. There will be some moral debate and voters may decide his indiscretions are too many to allow him in. It should be up to the voters though. A HOF without Joe Jackson or Pete Rose as inductees is a joke.

And my point is, if you want that to happen, then you have to lobby the HOF to rescind it's rule change. Not lobby MLB to take Rose off of its ineligible list.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/15/2017 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Gambling may be a disease. Lying is not. At this point, his constant lying about virtually everything to do with his case is what's keeping him on the ineligible list.

I've been on the "time to forgive Pete and let him in the HOF" bandwagon time after time over the years, and every time he's turned around and had yet another lie exposed. He's never come completely clean, and I don't think he ever will. He'll never see his name on a HOF plaque in his lifetime.

Nor, at this point, do I think he ever should.

i wasnt aware that he keeps lying.If thats the case,he shouldnt get in while hes alive.But he will get in.Bob Feller once said "The HOF is about more than stats.My fav Rose stat is he supposedly gave away more free autographs than anyone.He was there 2 hours before every game signing.