It should be all or none. Keeping Rose out because he cheated AND is unpopular, while letting Bonds play even though his cheating is virtually certain, is inconsistent behavior and does nothing for the integrity of the game.
It should be all or none. Keeping Rose out because he cheated AND is unpopular, while letting Bonds play even though his cheating is virtually certain, is inconsistent behavior and does nothing for the integrity of the game.
I'm sorry, but you have it wrong again. It's not about keeping Rose out because "he cheated AND is unpopular." Not at all. Rose's defenders point to his popularity among fans as a reason for his reinstatement.
It's about the standard punishments for rule infractions. We can argue whether or not steroid use should result in a lifetime ban (personally, I agree), but that's not what the rules say now. The rules reserve that punishment for gambling, and have since before Rose was born.
There have always been different punishments for different levels of cheating. Pitchers caught with sandpaper, for example, don't get the same punishment as steroid users do.
The reason for this, I believe, is that all the other methods of cheating - from Vaseline on the ball to steroids in the veins - are about trying to win games. Players who bet on games will try to lose games if it helps their bet. Even if they don't play to lose, they might play to change the spread. In either case, you have someone in uniform whose goal is not to win the game. That's a big difference.
Regardless of why baseball has different policies for gambling and other infractions. None of this changes the basic fact that Rose knew the consequences, he cheated anyway, and when caught he lied about it loudly for over a decade. He professed his innocence even though he knew he was guilty. Now he admits that he was guilty of x, but not of y. He broke the rule, the punishment is clear, and he has to take the punishment.