RGREELEY33 said:Isn't it somewhat reasonable to think, knowing what we know about Rose in general, that the days that he didn't bet on the Reds to win, he was in effect telling the Book that they were going to lose and/or he was willing to make that happen to some degree? I mean, is that a huge stretch here? If you can accept this premise to any extent, then I don't see how you could maintain a viewpoint that it is okay to bet on your team as long as you're not betting against them.
Bookie: "Pete, you owe us $38,000 this week."
Pete: "I'm not going to make any bets on the Reds today."
Bookie: "Got it."
EDIT: Typos
I actually do not think that is reasonable to think. I can't imagine any scenario where Rose lays up a play for any reason whatsoever. I absolutely can imagine myself in that same scenario and even if I did flat out bet against myself, I still wouldn't let up on the game. So, I do feel like it became a thing because of a perception rather than anything real happening on the field, and I think that's dumb in general. Punishable, yes, but lifetime ban and no HoF is not fitting of the crime. I'm also assuming he agreed to the ban so they wouldn't find his stash of dead hookers, not because he believes he did anything wrong or learned any lessons.
But it all, to me, comes down to him being in the Hall. I don't care if he ever sets foot on a baseball field or club house again. But he is a major part of baseball history and needs to be in the HoF.