Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame: Can We Overlook the "Cheating?"

After hearing Monday that Pete Rose could possibly be reinstated, I was both in shock and a bit okay with it. Of course, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig did say it was not as likely as people might think.

I was not a big fan of Pete Rose—not because I didn't think he was a good player, but because I was not alive during his playing career.

However, I do know what he has done in his Major League Baseball career. He could be up there with the best players of all time, including Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Jackie Robinson.

People may be shocked that I put those four men together, but if we judge things on just his baseball career, he is obviously in the same league with all three.

People will bring up the fact that he bet on the game of baseball, and Rose will say he never bet against his own team. Can I say we can believe him? Probably not. You want to believe him, but you can't totally trust anything, considering his past.

In fact, he pretty much denied betting on the game for some time, despite the undeniable truth that he did. He finally admitted to it officially, and that was something good to hear.

I think he is sorry for what he did, and he never thought it would blow up in his face like this. But can we really keep him out of the Hall of Fame, when we are starting to think about putting in alleged steroid users?

Many of the older baseball writers and other people with a say in the matter will not vote alleged users like as Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens into the Hall of Fame.

However, because the game has changed and it seems like everyone is being accused now, can we really keep out all of these players?

Sure, you have many who will not use steroids, which is a good thing. Steroids and other performance enhancers are not good for the body. Of course, we do need to realize that medical steroids are okay, but that is only under doctor's orders for a small period of time.

The regular usage of a drug is not good for anyone because they could get addicted and totally ruin themselves. In fact, steroid abuse has led to early death for some.

In any case, people in the new generation of voters will most likely vote for many of these alleged users. It is not about being right or wrong, but if everyone with a record in MLB seems to be linked to 'roids, how can you leave anyone out?

It seems everyone has some link to them, and while it is not right, we have to think that people will eventually vote for them.

Alex Rodriguez admitted to using steroids. He may not retire for another 10 years or so, at which point he'll still have another five years to wait to be Hall of Fame eligible. Even then, he'll have 15 more years on the ballot.

So realistically, in 30 or so years don't you think A-Rod will get in the Hall of Fame?

The new generation of voters will be in full effect by this time, which means many people will want to vote for him despite his link to steroids. The testing is in full effect now, so one would think most people are trying to stay clean.

Manny Ramirez will be linked to steroids, and we all know why. The man was taking a female drug that is used to get people off a steroid cycle. Though, he has said he was using it for different reasons.

He did admit to taking it, which was honorable, but he never admitted to steroid or performance-enhancing drug use. To me, it was somewhat smart.

The man was asked if he ever used the drug for which he tested positive, and he said yes. Many were upset that he didn't go ahead and say he was using steroids though.

To me, it is like putting a murderer on trial for one murder. He may have murdered another person, but why admit to killing someone else when you're on trial for one murder and not the other? It's dumb.

Manny may have used steroids, but he never tested positive. So we cannot actually say he is a steroid user now. He never admitted that he did, so we can only assume.

My point is, it looks as if steroid users or people accused of it could make their way to Cooperstown. If that is the case, then why can't Pete Rose be considered?

Steroid or performance-enhancer users are cheating on the game. Pete Rose bet on the game. Both cheated, but if one gets in the other should too.

It is not as if Rose was some bum who needed money because he was a bad player. In fact, as I mentioned before, he is one of the best players ever.

Here is the list of the top five All-Time Hits Leaders:

1. Pete Rose: 4,256
   
2. Ty Cobb: 4,189(HOF)
3. Hank Aaron: 3,771(HOF)
4. Stan Musial: 3,630(HOF)
5. Tris Speaker: 3,514(HOF)
   

He is the all-time hits leader, and this is just the top five; all but Rose are in the Hall of Fame right now. The list goes on, and over half of the top 100 are in the Hall of Fame or most likely going to be at some point in the future.

Rose has about 160 HRs and is a 17-time All Star. So it is obvious that Rose is worthy of the Hall of Fame.

To me, it is unfair to put a guy in the Hall of Fame who cheated to make himself a better player, while ignoring Rose, who never used any performance-enhancer or steroid.

He bet on the game, which was wrong. But I don't think he should be left out of the Hall of Fame if the 'roid users get in.

Of course my argument only serves a purpose if the users ever get in. If they don't, then Rose shouldn't, either. We have to keep things fair here, and the only way is to put all cheaters in (if they're worthy), or none at all.