Quote from annika here:

Pete says he never bet against his team. But he didn’t bet on them every game. So on the days when he didn’t place a bet, the game was tainted because one might have made the assumption that he didn’t think they were going to win, for whatever reason. Maybe he didn’t throw games, but there will always be that suspicion. And he’s not the most trustworthy person either, after 15 years of lies.

If you read Pete’s book, My Prison Without Bars and assuming that/if you believe anything Pete says (which I can understand never believing anything Pete says due to his self-admitted lying), then Pete’s explanation for not betting every day is that he couldn’t always get his bets placed every day based on time, circumstance and the people that were running bets for him. Also, his bookmakers were scamming him (touche`, I guess, for dealing with seedy people like this). If one believes this, then that explains why he didn’t bet every day and it is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

And as for some of those alleged baseball slips in his own handwriting? There were games on there that weren’t even scheduled to play on the days written on those slips. Wasn’t Pete a savvy enough gambler to know what days and what teams were playing? If this is the evidence used to persecute him for a lifetime in baseball, then it’s pretty weak.

There isn’t any evidence that he bet different amounts on certain days, certain pitchers, etc, which would suggest to me a much more likely pattern of manipulating the games. If that evidence exists, it would have come forward by now assuredly, yes/no?

I’m not saying Pete can be trusted or believed — or should, but with all his detractors and the investigation, we don’t have anything that definitively shows he took part in throwing a game. He bet on his team to win. That is a violation of the rules, yes, but there are other so many other transgressions in the game to be considered.

In the duplicated anti-Pete Rose thread at blogcritics: Apology accepted - but does it change anything? I wrote:

It’s a fairly common stance when it comes to Pete Rose to say he should be in the Hall but conditionally so. Was Ty Cobb put in the Hall conditionally?

Those that get angry about him as a person usually vent on his morality and ethics issues to make their claim against him as a player, but when put up against a wall they more often than not agree that he still belongs in the Hall based upon his accomplishments.

What I challenge is when these folks just want to add an asterisk or make some sort of special addendum to Pete’s case. I’m curious why when this would certainly show hypocrisy by baseball?

Much the way allowing (indian) casinos to advertise all over the stadiums. If they are so hell bent against gambling for players, why accept money from casinos period?

And yes, I do realize that it’s ok for the fans to gamble on the game (although sportsbetting in indian casinos isn’t allowed where we are at, which seems odd to say the least). But if these players work every day in a place with gambling is in their face but are told they can’t ever gamble or they’ll be banished forever, does that seem like maybe a wee bit contradictory?

I’ve already stated several times that Pete is not a good guy, and that I do not like what he has done off the field, nor do I like him as a person (so please, again, where do you get “I love cheaters” out of this?), but neither was Ty Cobb. He’s in the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Shame.

Stealing signs, scuffing the ball, corking bats, juicing on roids, there are cheating things in the history of the game that run far deeper than Pete Rose as a manager betting on his team to win. If there was a shred of proof that he ever threw a game or took part in throwing one, I’d turn on his cause in a millisecond and say he never should be put in the Hall, regardless of his accomplishments on the field as a player.

I understand the integrity of the game must be preserved lest it become wrestling, but there are so many integrity issues in the game historically, that Pete’s case just doesn’t pass baseball’s own smell test for good and bad for the game.

Now, I do like how Pete Rose played the game of baseball. He took no prisoners, he played to win, and he represented the crowd of not so talented, but determined atheletes. The people who may never make it to the major leagues because of size, natural skills, or some other silly thing that scouts use to pass over.

Today, some of these atheletes are super talented but a bit too lazy IMO. They don’t run out routine grounders (errors could be made and they could be safe), they don’t seem to have as much fun playing the game. Part of the reason to go to a game is to see the game played by people who want to win, not who want to not get hurt. I can see not being stupid, but there is so much emphasis put on that fear of a career ending injury that there play is at 75% when the fans are paying 150%.

I work hard for my money as I know many others do, and paying top dollar to watch people play the game like Pete Rose did is more enjoyable than watching — to use your words — ’snotty attitudes’ like PAY-ROD in Texas play.

=====
Bottom line: let Pete in the Hall of Fame so we don’t have to keep having this discussion for 14 more years. There are worse people already in the baseball Hall of Fame.

• Pete Rose mock trial on ESPN: Hall of Fame yes / no?
• Pete Rose Hall of Fame controversy part 13 and counting
• Pete Rose can’t hustle the IRS, he owes almost one million in back taxes
• ESPN working on Pete Rose movie
• What will bail Bonds from alleged steroids scandal?
• Review: My Prison without Bars by Pete Rose