[the 'stache]

You know guys, I may be having a change of heart here, only because it seems I might have been wrong on one very important fact. It's always been my understanding that he bet on baseball, and on the Cincinnati Reds, while he was a manager, and not a player. As such, I've always made the very important distinction that Rose did nothing while he was an active player that would have warranted his inclusion on the ineligible list. Because of that, I've felt that Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as a player, and banned from the game (including any future employment with baseball) because of his actions as a manager.

But Rose, for the first few years he managed, was still a player. So, my feelings on this matter would change if it's shown that he gambled on baseball at all between 1984 and 1986. If he did, then I do not feel he should be removed from the ineligible list. If he only gambled when he was a manager only, then I feel he should be removed from the ineligible list so the Baseball Writers have the opportunity to consider him for Cooperstown. He should otherwise be banned from baseball.

I've been looking on Google to try and find an answer as to when he started gambling, and thus far, I haven't been able to find an answer. But I wish to amend my earlier post. If Rose gambled even once, even if it was on his last day as a player/manager, then his entire playing career is tainted, and he should never be in the Hall. But if he gambled while he was a manager only, I feel a distinction needs to be made. I don't feel that Rose the played should be penalized because of what Rose the manager did.