General Forum

I personally would accept Clemens and Bonds being in if it doesn't open the floodgates here. I think that we are going to draw a hard line with betting then why let someone in simply because they "only did it once," (with the caveat that how many times it is knoan may not be all of them, and as far as im concerned if its working and you dont get caught I dont expect someone to stop) but if letting Bonds and Clemens in doesnt dscourage voters from not voting for more clear cheaters with otherwise more shaky cases. (I speak of a Manny or A-Rod who very clearly broke the rules, or a Sheffield who was heavily implicated)

For the record, Rose bet that his team would WIN, not lose.  Still against the rules (and still illegal at the time) but not the same as betting against his team and throwing games or shaving runs.  And yes, Joe was aquitted of wrongdoing, but that doesn't mean he wasn't guilty, it just means he wasn't legally criminal based on evidence available.  However, having said that, I would also put him in along with Rose.  I would also put in Clemens, Bonds, and ARod with no hesitation, and McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, and Sheffield after some thought.

the thing about Rose is I look at the issue and say "how can he have been the only one doing this." You have to wonder nowadays with online betting systems that more players do it, just covertly. Lets remember that these sports leagues actively promote betting on their games now, yet don't seem to be able to catch any player doing it. Doesn't make it right if others are doing it, (which is a key in my argument against PEDs) but a note worth making.

If it were up to me Rose, Bonds and Clemens would all be in. I really don't care if Rose bet on his team to win. I don't care if Bonds and Clemens and McGwire tood PEDs. Bonds was the best hitter I saw play and the chase with McGwire was awesome.

That being said, if the voters haven't let Rose in I can see where Bonds and Clemens and the like may be waiting a long time or forever.

Good point about him betting his team would win. A lot harder to affect outcome that way. I never really looked into the details of which way he was betting it. 

Voters have had no choice on Rose . He never appeared on the ballot as he was banned for the gambling before he would have been eligible for election 

HOF voting as a whole needs to be revisited as there's a lot wrong with the process before we even get to PED users. In my opinion, this is what the voting should look like

1. Player eligibility is 1 year only
2. Voters have unlimited votes per ballot
3. If a player does not make it on their first ballot, the Veterans committee can vote them in after 10 (completely arbitrary but seems fair)

Are these your ideas, or your understanding of how the process works now?

My ideas. The way I believe it currently works is:

1. A player must have 10 years of service time and is eligible 5 years after they retired
2. Once eligible, the voters have, i believe, 10 votes per ballot to cast on players
3. if a player receives fewer than 5% of the votes they are removed from next years ballot
4. If after 10 years of eligibility a player is not elected to the HOF they are removed from the ballot and added to the Veterans committee

Yes, this is all correct. When I read your initial post, I read it as you listing those things that were wrong with the process, and wanted to avoid confusion.