>>I agree with you on Rose, but I do have some caveats. Rose did what he did as a ballplayer and nobody can take that away. His betting doesn't really seem to have been a factor in his play, so I say, sure. Let him in. Having said that though, there are some others that personally, I'd bar the gate. Mark McGwire comes to mind. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa etc. etc. I would keep them out on the grounds that we have no idea whether they have the credentials had they played honestly. Unlike Rose, their actions did affect their play and as such, for my money, they do not get into the HOF.
>
>I heard someone on TV the other day, suggesting that ultimately the solution may be to have a special section in the HOF for the guys from the Steroids era, something like the asterisk in the record books.

I think I'd hate that. "Hi folks, here's the regular section, and here's the special section for cheats." No, I don't think I'd like that at all. It taints the whole concept.

>
>Although I hate what Bonds did, I think he was a HOF player before his head started growing. Ditto for Clemens.

The problem is that you have to look at a career, not just a bit of it. Who knows what might have become of them (especially Bonds) if they'd stayed straight. Maybe he'd have turned into a bum for those years. Probably not, but I just don't like the idea of putting somebody into the HOF when you really can't truthfully justify his numbers. Having said that, of course, it's always possible that there are players in there who eluded capture, but still...

>
>
>Tamar