Charlie Hustle(r)

[Shrek]

ESPN reports Rose may have bet against the Reds while managing them. If this is true, I vote the for the last option.

[Cannonball]

I can see a point that betting against a team you're a part of is worse than betting for that team, but either way it's sleazy. Rose is a sleaze and a disgrace and should be banned forever.

I voted "lifted immediately", but if he bet against them (or even for them; I had been of the impression he bet on baseball, but never involving the Reds) then I'd switch that to "lifetime ban"

I believe he has made bets on games he has played in, though always for the Reds to win. It fits his character in my opinion. He isn't perfect, but he is a gamer. I doubt he played with any less hustle in games where he didn't place a bet. I don't see a conflict of interest in his specific case though I believe he was an idiot to do what he did. This idiot deserves to be in the HOF.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I don't recall any evidence of his betting in games he PLAYED in.
I don't recall when he stopped playing, though.

[vito]

Should be banned forever. MLB has consistently told the participants that betting on baseball games is the one unforgiveable sin. There are posters in every locker room stating this. Teams have meetings at the beginning of each season, often with FBI personnel participating, stressing the importance of the rule. Rose blatantly ignored the warnings.

Also, a compromise of letting him in the HOF is unacceptable. This jerk does not want in the Hall for legacy reasons, he simply wants to increase the value of his signature at card shows.

Finally, betting for your own team is not any better than betting against your team, unless you bet in all 162 games.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I like lifetime ban. When he's dead, he can be reinstated. I find this the perfect compromise.

[Tony the Tiger]

Originally Posted by vito

Finally, betting for your own team is not any better than betting against your team, unless you bet in all 162 games.

Huh?? Betting against your team is far worse.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by mister nacho

I think a good compromise is to continue the ban, except for the Hall of Fame. I can't stand Pete Rose, and am not a fan of his. But I am not a fan of a lot of people. You cannot dispute his accomplishments. Let him into the Hall of Fame. But continuing the ban still serves notice that this was very serious, and rightly keeps a stigma.

As it is now, he gets more attention than if he'd be in the HOF, anyway. Let him in, and then we won't even be talking about Pete Rose in a couple years.

The lifetime ban on the rest is just for show, anyway. I doubt anyone would hire him for anything at this point.

I agree with your compromise, but I think the Reds would hire him in a second if the ban was lifted.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan

I don't recall any evidence of his betting in games he PLAYED in.
I don't recall when he stopped playing, though.

He bet on games he managed. That may be even worse than when he played.