Former MLB umpire Fred Brocklander is in studio today with Baltimore's Mark Viviano.  I normally nitpick opinions if I can quantify the inaccuracy of it.  This critique is qualitative in nature.  Brocklander is entitled to his opinion, but it's flawed.  He starts out by saying that Pete Rose should be enshrined in the HOF based upon the fact that Ferguson Jenkins is in the HOF.  After all, (paraphrasing Brocklander) "If we asked 100 people what the bigger danger to society is between drugs and gambling, 98 would say drugs."  That is highly flawed because it's only a hypothesis.  The other flaw is that he is trying to justify varying degrees of wrong.  Does a wife only get 40 percent if the husband commits adultery, versus the 50 percent she'd receive for emotional abuse?  Would the family of an addicted gambler think it's not such a big deal that daddy just gambled away his hime equity?  It is a big deal.  Pete Rose is not above the rules just because he happens to have 4,000 hits.

The other point that Brocklander and others make is that Rose bet ON the Reds.  This should somehow absolve him of wrongdoing.  Here's the problem.  What does it say about the games in which Pete had no action?  Did Pete only use his best resources when he had action on games?  Did John Franco sit out a ninth inning when Pete didn't have a bet?  These are fair questions to ask.  The rule is in place because the league doesn't want to deal with all of these "what ifs."

Ask the NBA right now how they feel about the implications of gambling.  People have whispered for years that the NBA games aren't always on the up and up.  How do you get the Spurs to lose?  Eject Tim Duncan of course.  You have to give fans the impression that what they are seeing is real.  It's what got Mark McGwire only 25 % of the HOF vote.  And it's what has Pete Rose hawking junk on QVC.