Quote:
Originally Posted by roberts
The gambler's DNA makes him "gettable" at some point. Dowd maintained that although he couldn't prove Rose bet against the Reds he would have developed that evidence with more time. Not that I find Dowd to be the most honorable guy either. Whatever, we haven't heard anything about gambling since then....
|
Well, that's the thing: Evidence either exists or it doesn't. It shouldn't be "developed".
Looking at his on-the-field exploits (which is, ostensibly, what inductees are supposedly judged on), Rose should be in the HoF before a
lot of other people...