Sorry, Pete

Pete Rose was banned for life from baseball in 1989 as part of an agreement to settle allegations of gambling on the game, perhaps even on games in which Rose's Cincinnati Reds played.

In the following years, Rose persistently maintained his innocence, claiming that he was a victim of the commissioner (Bart Giamatti, at the time), the game and the fans.

His lifetime ban obviously included a ban from the Hall of Fame, producing one of the most debated topics in baseball history.

Recently, in his book entitled "My Prison Without Bars," Rose admitted placing bets on baseball games during his years at the helm of the Reds.

He maintains that he never bet on a game involving the Reds and never used insider information in placing his bets.

Now he wants to work his way back into baseball and maybe even a place in the Hall of Fame, pending a reinstitution by commissioner Bud Selig.

Baseball's career hit leader just may get what he wants, but not without plenty of dissention from the baseball fans of the world.

Pete Rose placed bets on baseball games. We know that's true because he has admitted it. Baseball's most sacred rule outlaws gambling on the game.

Rose harmed the integrity of the game by breaking that rule. Admitting his wrongdoings -- especially after 14 years of fervently attempting to convince everyone of his innocence -- should not be enough to wipe the slate.

Rose did the wrong thing. He made mistakes just like any other baseball player has.

If Pete Rose had come clean in 1989 and asked for forgiveness, I would have been all for giving the man another chance (although I would have been only three-years old).

However, Rose gambled repeatedly, knowing that it was wrong, and then lied to everyone about it for an extended period of time.

Suddenly he admits his gambling habit, as well as his lying habit, and the fans of baseball are supposed to welcome him back as if he was always just a victim and never did anything wrong? I have a problem with that.

Some people have criticized Rose for admitting his past in a book, asserting that he only told the truth in order to make some money.

I think that is pretty obvious. Anyone in this country with a secret to tell (particularly one which the entire nation cared about) would gladly jump at the opportunity to make money off of it.

I have no problem with Rose doing that -- he can tell his story any way he wants to.

However, I don't want to see him back in baseball, at least not without a lengthy period of deliberation.

It would be wrong for baseball to throw the door wide open and accept one of its most problematic players at the drop of a hat.

It would be sad enough to see the traditions and standards of such a fine game lowered by letting one man back after he knowingly hurt the game and everyone involved.

It would be even worse to set such a precedent.

Shoeless Joe would be next, and then every baseball player in the league would realize that they could gamble freely on baseball, knowing that the only requirement for readmission would be a well-timed confession.