No.Rules can be changed or abridged. Perhaps if they took away his stats for the last two years that would count.
Nein.Plus some kind of asterisk much like one Roger Maris had that lets people know about the cheating. I think we might be getting something like that as well from others who used steroids and such drugs.
Non.Also in addition from still not being able to work in the MLB he can't use being in the Hall of Fame as a means of endorsements.
Nyet.Perhaps sign a contract where MLB can sue him if they think he is trying to sneak around the contract.
Again, I don't know why you're so interested in finding weasel room to allow Rose a plaque in the Hall of Fame. I'm going to quote Hal McCoy, who covered the Reds for the Dayton Daily News:
Source (scroll down to the second half of the page; the page is a pair of pro/con essays about Rose's eligibility)The public must be assured that the game is legitimate and that everybody is doing his best to win at all times. A manager controls games with strategy decisions such as when to remove a pitcher and when to insert a pinch hitter. When that manager bets on the game, the question of whether he is trying to win at all times surfaces, and that is a question that never should have to be asked....
Some of Rose’s defenders say he never bet against the Reds, only wagering on them to win. The fallacy of this argument is that on days when Rose did not bet on the Reds, bookmakers figured that Rose thought his team would not win, so they bet heavily against the Reds.
The major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game.
Last edited: