no he bet on baseball and hes a liar.
2006-12-05 08:47:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Never!! As a Phillies fan I'm sorry the dirt ball had anything to do with our team. He was a jerk when he was here. The Phillies would have won without him. He just rode the wave, that's all. He's dishonest and broke the cardinal rule of baseball. Who's to say he never determined the outcome of games even as a player? The integrity of the game is at stake and I for one think that's more important than any one ex-player. The same applies to all the steroid users. They are nothing but cheaters too and should never be allowed into the hall of fame.
2006-12-05 20:39:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by MichaelJack548 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Without a doubt because omg he bet on baseball not like thats a huge crime or anything and gets kicked out?
That's so wrong
A)1st time steroid users get like a 10-20 game suspension, not a ban for life.
B)Darryl Strawberry got several chances with cocaine until he was kicked out, but still not on the 1st offense.
C)Bud Selig is a douche and needs to be removed as comissioner so that the all-time hits king at 4,256 can have his rightful place in the hall of fame.
D)you can keep Pete Rose the manager out but let Pete Rose the player be inducted because he did nothing wrong during his playing career. Charlie Hustle did more for the game as a player than he could have ever done against it as a manager.
2006-12-05 16:51:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by pat 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
I actually did a research paper on this very question. From what I found, Pete Rose VOLUNTARILY accepted a lifetime ban from baseball, and what he did was explicitly forbidden in the baseball rules at the time that he did it. Since he voluntarily banned himself, I don't think he deserves to just decide that he now gets to be reinstated. He broke the rules and accepted the punishment accordingly.
2006-12-05 17:30:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by goldeneye2131 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. Whether he bet on baseball or not he is one of the best hitters of all time. If baseball wants to have their rule where you are banned from baseball if you bet on the game is fine. They should have this rule. But seperate the sport from the Hall of Fame. Let him in the hall as he deserves but continue to not let him work in Major League Baseball.
2006-12-05 16:29:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by answerguy 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Though betting on his team was wrong. That was like 30 years ago!!!! He deserves to finally be in the Hall of Fame i mean he's the all-time leader in career hits and he has like a .340 career batting average. He deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame now after suffering all the years he wasn't voted in
2006-12-05 15:54:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Naman B 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Though betting on his team was wrong. That was like 30 years ago!!!! He deserves to finally be in the Hall of Fame i mean he's the all-time leader in career hits and he has like a .340 career batting average.
naman b said it best.
2006-12-06 19:04:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by jdkline_87 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Definiteley. It's not the good two shoes hall of fame. The Baseball Hall of Fame is for the very best players who played the game. I dont think that something that happened off the field should keep him out of the Hall.
2006-12-05 20:36:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Absolutely YES! It is all about talent, not about gambling. Hey, if McGwire can admit to steroid use and still be considered for the HOF, why not Pete?
2006-12-05 20:40:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Wildwing 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. He gambled on Baseball amogst other sports and is a miserable human being.
Shoeless Joe Jackson should get in before Rose.
2006-12-05 16:13:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Oz 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
No, respectfully. Baseball needs to have rules, and betting on games has to be against the rules. I realize he was a great player, but he violated the rule, lied about it for 15 years, and he had to know the consquences of his actions. It's the one rule we must upheld at all costs for the game to remain true. I feel bad for him, but the rule was known when he violated it.
2006-12-05 16:01:16
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋