It Was 20 Years Ago Today, Pete Rose Wasn't Allowed to Play

It has been 20 years since Pete Rose stood in front of the camera and accepted a lifetime banishment from the game he loved.

I have come full circle regarding the issue. In the summer of 1989, I was 13 years old and as big a fan of Rose as you could possibly imagine. I played the game like he did, getting the absolute maximum out of my limited physical ability. He was someone I could identify with.

When reports began to surface that accused him of gambling on baseball, I knew he didn't do it. My theory was he bet on football and basketball, lost, and felt he didn't have to pay because of who he was. The bookies knew that accusations of gambling on baseball would bring Rose down.

As I got older, got married, and became a father, I realized that "Pete the player" was a totally different person than "Pete the man." It solidified the concept of athletes not necessarily being role models off the field. However, between the lines, I still teach my son to play the game like Rose.

For 15 years, my stance did not change. I hated Bart Giamatti and Fay Vincent. The sight of John Dowd made me sick. I had loved baseball my entire life and had no desire to visit the Hall of Fame until the Hit King was deservedly enshrined.

In 2004, Pete's admission of guilt hit me like a punch in the stomach. It was a weird feeling of confusion and betrayal. The man that I had loved and defended for so long had been lying the whole time.

There were times when I thought he didn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Did he bet on or against the Reds? He lied about gambling, so why wouldn't he lie about something else? Having finally admitted his mistakes, would he now be granted reinstatement? Was it too late?

Rose's accomplishments on the field speak for themselves. No sane person can debate that his numbers warrant admission to the Hall of Fame. Basically, it is a personal issue. Each baseball fan who speaks of Rose does so with the passion of their own opinion.

Fans, journalists, baseball officials, and current members of the Hall of Fame all have an opinion on whether or not baseball's all-time hit leader belongs in Cooperstown. However, the only opinion that matters right now is that of commissioner Bud Selig.

I think Vincent indirectly holds Rose responsible for Giamatti's death. Giamatti suffered a heart attack and died shortly after announcing that he had banned Rose for life.

When Selig took office, it appeared as if he would simply honor the wishes of Giamatti and Vincent. Baseball would continue without one of its greatest ambassadors.

The issue has never gone away and never will. With the recent accusations and admissions of performance-enhancing drug use in baseball, many fans and former players have compared these situations to Rose.

Which is worse, betting on your team to win or taking steroids? Do the respective punishments fit the crimes? Rose is banned for life, forced to sell his autograph to make a living. Manny Ramirez got a 50-game vacation and returns to his multi-million dollar contract.

I am not condoning what Rose did, but how do his wrongdoings compare to those who used steroids to knowingly gain an unfair advantage?

Even if Rose would be granted reinstatement, he would need 75 percent of the veteran's committee vote to be elected to the Hall of Fame. Players like Mike Schmidt, Hank Aaron and Joe Morgan have supported Rose, while miserable old men like Bob Feller have not.

This debate will go on forever. Rose made a mistake, lied about it, and served his time. He is still on the outside looking in. Steroids have cast a dark cloud over the last decade of baseball, compromising sacred records. Players have knowingly used the drugs, lied about it, and returned to the field. Is that fair?

We live in a society where people are given second chances. Doesn't Rose deserve a second chance?

Twenty years is long enough.