Would your opinion of Rose's status change if it was proven he bet as a player?

I don't think it would.

My opinion of him as a person is already low, and I don't believe he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame both for his gambling (especially as a manager where he can exert greater influence on the outcome of a game than he could as a single player) - and for how he has behaved following his ineligibility - especially all the bold faced lies.

Rule 21 is clearly written and posted in every major league clubhouse. Rose HAD to have known the rule, along with the defined sanctions. He decided to break it anyway, and did so repeatedly. This was a very bad decision on his part, and bad decisions can have bad and lasting consequences. Everything that has befallen Rose has been by his own hand. I have no sympathy for Rose but for two, fairly small, points: 1. Commissioner Selig, though he is under no obligation (and clearly has no desire) to do so, should rule on Rose's 1997 application for reinstatement. (His ruling should be "No".) 2. Rose, still, needs help, and isn't about to get it on his own, so it is well past time that some of his legion of apologists, fans, and groupies, take an active, personal role in making this happen. Reforming his life is the ONLY chance, however minuscule, Rose has at ever gaining reinstatement (his banishment is "permanent", not "lifetime" like so many misinterpret, so being dead will not change Rose's status with MLB in the least). Those who consider Rose their cause need to rise up and take the initiative. The Hall is a much less important matter than his expulsion from MLB. But, since the topic never goes away, read carefully -- yes, Rose SHOULD be in the Hall. His playing career clearly merited the honor. But Rose, and remember this happened by his own actions, carries special circumstances so dire that the Hall will not even consider him a candidate. Absent those special circumstances, he would have been elected years ago, his plaque quietly oxidizing in upstate New York ever since; no one is silly enough to claim Rose is unworthy based on his playing performance. So, he is out, and will remain thus. And this is not an unjust situation, no matter how bitter a pill it is for Rose fans to continue refusing to swallow. Rose and Rose alone trashed his career and his legacy. His many fans continue to hold that legacy in much higher regard than Rose ever did.

Some may say it's pretty cut and dry. Of course those who defend Rose would say otherwise. I don't really think that a majority of people would change their minds about Rose. I read some of what you've posted and I thank you for that.

Rose never endeared himself to too many people. He was, to say the least, a first class jerk when he played here in Philadelphia. It's not like he was out of character in doing what he did. Did he bet during his playing days? No one really knows outside of a few inner circle people I would think. He probably did and if so it just adds credence to what has already been said about him.

As a player I can' think of anyone in the history of the game that did so much with so little. He wanted to win more than anything else in the world but that desire took him over the edge.

No, he doesn't belong in the hall. He has no character. I'm sure that he is over joyed with all the HGH and steroid issues of the day. I'm sure in his mind he thinks that a little bet now and then doesn't nearly add up to pumping your body full of chemicals. Those who defend him are just hiding their heads in the sand. Right is right and wrong is wrong. There is no middle ground concerning this issue. If he was innocent he would NEVER have signed anything that would have kept him out of baseball. The fact that he did only proves my point.

One of the major problems that I have with the lifetime ban is that Gambling is treated throughout society as a sickness and/or addiction. To that end, alcoholics and drug addicts are embraced and helped out time and again in baseball.

The intent of the Rule is to deter a player or manager from throwing a game(s). Rose never bet against his team and his track record as a hard nosed player that player TO WIN at all times also leads me to believe that he would have played or managed the same whether he had money on a game or not. To win!

Does it make it right? Of course not. But there is no proof that he bet on games as a player and he should be given the benefit of the doubt unless proved else wise.

He has paid a price for his transgression. Far more than steroid users have paid for something that is actually ILLEGAL in and out of the game. He didn't get chance after chance to come back like Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, etc.

No, it wouldn't change my opinion. He should be re-instated to baseball and should be in the Hall of Fame.

I believe that Rose's gambling activities as manager of the Reds are sufficient to warrant his lifetime ban, and his continued denial that he bet as a manager until he finally published his book hammered the nails into the coffin, so to speak.

Rose might have been able to be rehabilitated if he'd come clean and shown some genuine contrition for his violation of Rule 21, but his jackass braying that amounts to a declaration that he was such an epic player that he deserves reinstatement in spite of his violation has made it impossible for MLB to do anything other than cold-shoulder him.

I think MLB has done the right thing by continuing his ban. I also think that there is still a chance that Rose could be rehabilitated if he would show some genuine contrition, but I think that's about as likely as the sun rising in the west. Ain't gonna happen.

I know enough about how the brains of addicts work not believe in the Clark Kent/Superman model that Rose's fans are try to pass -off as Truth

His supporters want us to believe that as a player Rose was just an honest, hard working ballplayer that never ever bet on anything But when Rose stepped into the magical phone booth that turned him into a manager he all of a sudden became this crazed maniacal ,compulsive gambler.

What utter nonsense .

I can't see why we are still talking Pete Rose's offenses.

Gambling as a player or manager or any one else that has any thing to do officially with the outcome of any MLB game is subject to suspension by MLB and its acting Commissioner.

He gambled as a player and as a manager and still to this day hangs out in Las Vegas casinos and keeps crying, "Oh, poor me. Just look at what I did on the field and vote only on that."

Sorry Pete, there is more to the Hall than that and I hope that no one ever expunges your "permanent" suspension from the Hall of Fame.

Instead of speculating on hypothetical situations, we need to stay with the facts of the Rose Case. Could of, would of and should of's don't matter

Rose bet on baseball while manager and received his penalty. He won a lifetime ban from baseball and is on the HOF Disqualified List (by himself).

My opinion of Pete Rose is that he's one of the best hitters ever to play the game of baseball and rightfully earned his nickname "Charlie Hustle" in more ways than one. Although his "career numbers" belong in the Hall of Fame, he as a player and manager belong in the Hall of Shame for his gambling bets.

He eliminated himself as an inductee and should be made as an example that MLB won't tolerate gambling nor PED's in their sport. I hope they are just as strict when it comes to voting in a convicted PED user to the Hall of Fame.

Answering questions about gambing and/or steroids always brings me down. Why did these bird brains have taint the best game in the world?

I think the only way establishing that he bet on games as a player would impact my thoughts about Pete, would be if he bet for his team to lose while playing. I couldn't possibly have a lower opinion of his actions, but that would send me over the boiling point.