If Bonds and Clemens get into the Hall of Fame, then shouldn't Pete Rose get in too?

Question

It's only fair.

Answer 1

Case by case. The thing Rose has against him is he was a manager, control of a lineup and bet on his team. There is no proof that he bet against them but could have. If he bet against them, he could tweak pitching matchups, put in players in situations where they are likely to fail, etc. He has some control of a negative outcome of a game.

Steroids is cheating but in my opinion, not as bad. They are trying to better themselves and their teams. No way, shape or form throwing a game.

The biggest scandal is still the Black Sox.

Answer 2

Never. The facts are simple. Pete Rose admittedly bet on baseball. The punishment for this is being put on the permanently inelgible list. The Hall of Fame does not induct anyone who is on that list. Whether or not it affected his performance is not the issue. Neither is the fact that he was a manager when he did it. There are no exceptions to this rule for managers, for players who really hustled or for players with more then 4000 hits. While gambing is probably not as serious as illegally obtaining prescription drugs in the grand scheme of things, it is the greatest sin in terms of the world of baseball. So great is this rule that it is prominently displayed in every single major league clubhouse. While the actions of Bonds, Clemens, Canseco, Palmeiro, etc. are despicable, the bottom line is that baseball did not have rules against those substances at the time. The fact that there were players who did use those substances does not make what Rose did any less reprehensible. The argument that other people behave in objectional ways does not in any way change the fact that Rose knowingly broke this rule, and should never be used as an argument that he should ever be allowed into the Hall of fame. And Bonds or any of the other "alleged" steroid users being inducted into the Hall should not and will not ever make Rose any less guilty. There are only a couple of things that will ever change that. One would be that a future MLB commissioner will decide to end Rose's "permanent" ineligibility. Another would be that the Hall itself changes its' rules to allow players on that list to be eligible for induction. The other would be if somehow Rose were magically innocent (despite the fact that he admitted it.). Regardless of how it would happen - don't hold your breath waiting for it. I am certainly in the minority when I say that I certainly hope I never see Rose within 100 miles of the Hall, let alone inducted into it.

Answer 3

I wouldn't let Bonds in because there's obvious proof he has taken steroids, just look how big he is compared to what he used to be. Now Clemens ,on the other hand, looks basically the same, even before he was "allegedly" using steroids. I think that Clemens would get in before Bonds for sure. Now about Pete Rose. He'll never get in the Hall Of Fame, b/c he will always be remembered for cheating and betting on games. Rose would probably get in before Bonds as of right now.

Answer 4

Neither Bonds nor Clemens has ever been proven to have used banned substances after the date on which they were made illegal by major league baseball.

Pete Rose, on the other hand, violated a well-known, 80-year-old rule, and admitted to it after almost a decade of lying. To compare him to Bonds and Clemens is ridiculous, and there's nothing fair about your proposal.

Answer 5

No.
It isn't unfair. Baseball mishandled steroids and the Players' Union is a farce concerning integrity, but that doesn't mean Rose is all right. Just because OJ got off doesn't mean the non-celebrity murderers should have been released.

Answer 6

No. Pete Rose was banned from baseball in any context. Bonds and Clements haven't been.

However, none of them are sniffing that building any time soon.

Answer 7

No, because unfortunately Pete Rose was banned from baseball, and can't be in the HOF. As for steroid users that could go to the HOF because of their numbers, either all of them or none of them go.

Answer 8

Pete Rose was a way better player than both of these guys he deserves the hall of fame i know its wrong to bet on ur own team but the records he did when he was a player had nothing to do with that ...

Answer 9

Pete Rose is not in the HOF for the following reasons:

1. He bet on baseball.
2. He was put on the permanently ineligible list for betting on baseball.
3. Players on the ineligible list are not eligible for induction into the Hall ( their rules, not MLB's)

Have Bonds or Clemens been put on the ineligible list? No. Does that make the fact that they possibly used performance enhancing drugs any less offensive then Rose betting on baseball? No. BUT, and this is what all of the Rose apologists need to attempt to see through their "he bet on games as a manager, not as a player" mentality, Rose KNOWINGLY broke a rule that has been in baseball since before he was even alive. And not only did he break the rule, he did it habitually. However, there is no proof that Bonds or Clemens have done anything against MLB rules.
If either of them were to be declared permantly ineligible, they too, would not be allowed induction into the HOF. Until that happens, however, and until the 2 of them actually become eligible (5 years after retirement) there is no reason to assume that they will be in. McGwire sure didn't make it, in spite of hitting 583 home runs.
One final thing to remember - one person's crime does not in any way make another person's crime either more or less offensive. And in this case, the only true "rule-breaker" you have mentioned is Rose.
Get over it - Rose has no place in the Hall of Fame now or in the future.

Answer 10

No, Rose should never get in. Gambling and performance enhancing drugs are a different beast all together.