He prolly can't make the hall on character and sportsmanship either, but he's there. I think Pete Rose should be allowed back in baseball.

If anyone is interested in reading it, the following is a letter I sent recently to several voting members who had stated they would never vote for Pete Rose's induction into the Hall of Fame:

Dear Mr. _______,

I don't get to vote upon who is admitted to Baseball's Hall of Fame. I wish I did, because there is a historic player who I witnessed that I would surely vote for. He was the epitome of give all baseball and he played that way every day for two solid decades. A lapse of judgement ruined his reputation. Some players have used illegal drugs, but detection and rehabilitation gave them the chance to alter their life styles and allow them a second and even third chance. Some baseball players have utilized steroids. A large number of steroid users were recently detected in random screenings and now I understand the entire league will be subjected to testing. I wonder...has anyone contemplated how the use of steroids can damage the integrity of the game? Are the records modern players set meaningful? Is history being robbed of legitimate accomplishments? Does anyone wonder what the young people think when players like Bonds and Sosa and McGuire and Canseco are rumored to have used steroids to perhaps alter the game? What about Sosa's corked bat? What about Gaylord Perry's spitball? Is it permissible to cheat in baseball?

There was a baseball commissioner named "Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis". (Please forgive my spelling errors on names, I'm atrocious with them) Landis banned eight players from the 1919 Chicago White Sox from baseball for allegedly fixing a World Series. One of those players is said to have turned down the money to throw the series but ostensibly he was banned from baseball along with the others for not revealing the offer. This ban occurred even though seven were acquitted of the misdeeds in district court. (One didn't face trial per my source, I'm assuming the one that didn't accept the bribe) They faced "double jeopardy" and all eight lost out to the politics of the times. I don't believe there was an allegation that any of those players bet either for or against their team. However, Judge Landis wanted to be sure that in the wake of the scandal that all contributing causes were barred and betting on baseball was one of them.

Its 85 years later. When we buy life insurance we gamble that we will die prematurely and that our families will win our bet. We go to school or take jobs gambling that the investment will pay off down the road. Though today many corportions in an effort to save expense lay off their older employees in their late fifties. Life is full of risk so we do our best in placing our bets. In 1919 Las Vegas didn't exist. It didn't exist for Joe Jackson and it didn't exist for our great grandfathers either. There was no such thing as a "State Lottery" or "Powerball". There was no horseracing "Triple Crown". There were no whirling slot machines on Indian Reservations. Landis for all his "vision" didn't see fit to allow black athletes into the game. We are far removed from 1919. Its more than generational. Which is not to say that everything that has evolved has been for our betterment. Addictive gambling isn't and steroids aren't either. But we certainly live in a far different time.

Judge Landis would probably not vote to allow Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame, but he also banned one of the Black Sox despite his refusal to take a bribe. Landis had a scandal to quash and he may have quashed a couple of innocents along the way. It was a different era. When you go to vote I believe you will consider Judge Landis's iron fist as it related to the scandal of the time. I believe you'll consider how our society has grown tolerant of mistakes when a genuine effort is made address them. We no longer expect perfections from our athletic idols. I hope you will ask yourself:

"Did Pete Rose do anything at anytime that was anything short of attempting to win?"

If you can answer that question with a "yes" I would be flabbergasted, but should the day come when you are considering Pete Rose's induction into the Hall of Fame all that is really important is that you ask it.

Pete Rose bet on baseball and he bet on his own team. He shouldn't have done it, but do you ban someone from the Hall of Fame upon the basis of a 1919 scandal edict and 1919 ethics or do you consider modern ethics, modern application of Landis's edict and actual harm done? If induction is upon the basis of 1919 ethics who gets admitted to the Hall of Fame?

God Bless,

Chuckles the Clown :)