Pete Rose now admits that he gambled on baseball. I've been a fan of Rose for a long, long time, but I'm finding the timing of this admission a little tough to take.

In his autobiography, Pete Rose: My Story (1989), he denied betting on baseball. Now, in his new book, My Prison Without Bars, he says he did it. But never AGAINST his team...as if that somehow makes it all right (or at least less wrong). Understandably, baseball historian Roger Kahn (who co-wrote Pete Rose: My Story with Rose), is feeling like he was made a fool of by Rose. Kahn says he "must have asked Pete 20 times, 'Did you bet on baseball?' He would look at me, blink his eyes and say, 'I didn't bet baseball. I have too much respect for the game.' "

Rose indicates that he's wanted to come clean for years but couldn't find anyone to confess to that could "help" him. I'm guessing that by the word "help" he means "get (him) reinstated in baseball". And, to be honest, that's not the reason I was hoping to hear from him. I wish it didn't bother me so much that his apparently sole reason (or at least his main reason) for admitting to gambling is so that he can be reinstated...incidentally, he has one more shot at the Hall of Fame (at least on the writers' ballots) and that's in December 2005. But it does bother me.

I guess something else that bothers me is that he pretty much DID admit to it when he accepted his lifetime ban in 1989. Given that he has steadfastly denied gambling in the nearly 15 years since his ban, why would he have accepted such a punishment if they didn't have the goods on him? If the reason that he didn't admit to gambling was because he thought they'd ban him for life...well when they did ban him for life, why not just admit to it then? Why would anyone want to carry around that karmic burden for fifteen years?

And that's what it really comes down to, IMO. Pete Rose could have simply admitted to gambling, apologised to MLB and to the players and to the fans for gambling--and for lying about it for so long--and then he could have just said, "hey, I'd love to be reinstated back into baseball, but I'm just saying all of this now so I can put it all behind me. If they reinstate me, I'd be delighted because I feel I have something positive to contribute to baseball, but if they don't, I'll move on with my life."

Instead, he seems to be complaining that once he confessed to Commissioner Bud Selig, he thought he'd be reinstated, "within a reasonable period." He complains that he was told that if he would just admit betting on baseball then "all would be forgiven". But does he reject forgiveness, if that forgiveness doesn't come bundled with reinstatement (or at least reinstatement before the December 2005 HOF balloting)?

I've long called for Rose's reinstatement: To be quite honest, I've thought for a long time that the punishment was a bit too severe for the crime. I've talked to some baseball fans over the years who are very passionate about this and say that if Major League Baseball reinstates Pete Rose, they'll never watch another game. I try to think, given my passion for hockey, "what if they caught Wayne Gretzky betting on hockey, would I support a lifetime ban against him?" and I keep coming back to, "No". (And I don't particularly like Gretzky!) I think banning Rose from baseball for five or ten years would have gotten the message across (provided that ban came with an admission of betting on baseball). Then, let him back in and if he bets again, make it a lifetime ban.

Still, that said, I am greatly disappointed in his attitude at this point. I wish I could afford a copy of his book when it comes out this week, so I can see if he really is a bit more contrite and a little less, "baseball owes me" about the situation than recent interviews (and his book title, for that matter) indicate.