This baseball writer says that Pete Rose should remain ineligible for the National Baseball Hall of Fame. His reason? To deter others from wagering on the game. (How's that for using a person as a mere means to other people's ends?) He never so much as mentions that the Hall is, or should be, for on-the-field performance. It is not for saints; it is for baseball players. Pete Rose is the best player in the history of baseball, by far. Even people who hate him admit this. If he is not in the Hall of Fame, then the Hall of Fame is worthless.
Addendum: Rule 5 on this list is the one that causes the problem. It is so vague that it allows voters to make moral judgments about the players. What a disgrace. How would baseball writers like it if Pulitzer Prizes were based, even in part, on the "integrity" and "character" of journalists? They would rightly howl that these things have nothing to do with with the quality of one's work.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 