By Ronald Blum
The Associated Press

NEW YORK - Not everyone is looking forward to Pete Rose's return. Former commissioner Fay Vincent, in fact, has an idea for a plaque should his old nemesis one day get into the Hall of Fame: Put "Banned for Gambling" right on it.

Rose would become eligible for the Hall ballot if Selig agrees to end the ban. Vincent discussed the issue of Rose's potential plaque this week with commentator George Will, a former director of the Baltimore Orioles and San Diego Padres.

"He called me the other day and said it should be on the plaque," Vincent said. "I agree with that. That's what the Hall of Fame should do."

If Rose is ever elected, the Hall of Fame would decide the wording of his plaque and would not reveal it until the day of the induction, Hall spokesman Jeff Idelson said.

The Hall has taken more control in recent years, announcing that it would decide which team a player would be identified with when inducted. In recent years, some inductees had appeared to be negotiating with different club managements over which hat would be portrayed on their plaque.

After negotiations between Rose and Selig became public this week, the Hall staff notified its board of directors that it was not commenting on the issue of Rose's possible reinstatement. Former AL president Lee MacPhail and former commissioner Bowie Kuhn both declined comment Thursday, and MacPhail said he was instructed not to talk.

Vincent said John Dowd, who headed baseball's investigation of Rose in 1989, never mentioned any evidence that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds.

The New York Post reported Wednesday that Dowd told the paper he had reliable evidence that Rose bet against his team but didn't include it in his 225-page report because of time constraints.

"This is the first I've heard of that claim," Vincent said Thursday. At the time of the investigation, Vincent was deputy commissioner under A. Bartlett Giamatti, and Vincent hired Dowd to head the probe.

In the summary at the start of his report 13 years ago, Dowd wrote "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Cincinnati Reds."

Dowd said Thursday he was asked by the Post whether he came across any evidence that Rose gambled against his team. Dowd said he told the paper there was some, but it was inconclusive.

"I was never able to tie it down," Dowd said. "It was unreliable, and that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it. I was not trying to start something here."

Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball on Aug. 23, 1989, following an investigation of his gambling. While Rose denied gambling on baseball, Giamatti said he concluded the 17-time All-Star bet on games involving the Reds.

Selig wants Rose to admit he bet on baseball as part of any reinstatement agreement. None of the 14 others banned for life for gambling were ever reinstated.

Vincent isn't sure whether Selig should end the ban, but wants an admission of gambling on baseball included in any agreement.

"The real problem is how do you take his word that he stopped," Vincent said. "We know he bets on all things. What has he done in the last 13 years to demonstrate he's worthy of being reinstated?"

Even if the ban ends, Vincent would not put Rose in the Hall of Fame.

"I think the Hall of Fame has a character test, and I don't support his candidacy because he failed a very important test," Vincent said.

Vincent is withholding judgment until he sees what kind of agreement Selig and Rose agree to. He also said Selig should proceed "very carefully."

"He has to be careful not to take Pete's word," Vincent said. "We know that word is no good - that's something that has to be factored in."

Selig, who at the time was the owner in charge of baseball's labor policy, spoke with Vincent many times during the investigation. Until now, Selig has said he has seen no reason to alter the ban.

"I think it's public pressure," Vincent said when asked why Selig would change his stance. "He may think this may help rejuvenate baseball, which has looked a little gray around the edges of late. He may think this is a good thing to do for baseball. I happen to think it's a bad thing.

"He runs the risk that baseball would have a spate of gambling in the future. He's taking personally some enormous risk that his legacy could be that he made a very bad mistake fooling around with this. Otherwise, commissioners might have let Joe Jackson back in. They wrestled with that, but nobody took the chance because they didn't want to risk hurting baseball."