Pete Rose finally admitted to betting on baseball. The collective people of the world look at each other and say, "Well, duh." The only person who never seemed to get the truth was Pete Rose. We all knew he bet on baseball. We all knew he was addicted to gambling and that the addiction ruined his life in baseball. Now he has said the magic words. Should it matter that he did so?

I have stated before in this space my opinion of Pete Rose and my opinion hasn't changed with his new-found emotional strength to admit what he did. Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. His actions on the field speak louder than all that's happened off the field. But Pete Rose should never step on the MLB field again in any kind of official manner.

What Pete Rose has done is spend years lying to us. But he wasn't just lying to us, he was lying to himself and all the other players he played with, coached and managed. He thought for years that the big lie would wear us down and that after a while, we would soften our stance and forgive him what he never gave us a chance to forgive. Even now, he isn't asking for forgiveness or showing contriteness. He is simply saying, "Yeah, okay...so I bet on some games."

His new book is called "Prison Without Bars." Even the name of the book pushes for our forgiveness. The truth he doesn't get is that he fastened each one of those prison walls and locked his own key. Can anyone tell me what is different between Pete Rose and Art Schlichter? You remember Art Schlichter? He was the Colts quarterback who threw his life away because of his gambling addiction. The only difference between the two is that Rose's career was over before people knew what he was doing. Schlichter's career was just starting.

But Schlichter's sad case demonstrates that gambling addictions don't go away. The ex-quarterback's life has been like a bad B-movie since he left football. Can anyone prove that Pete Rose hasn't placed a bet in the years since he's been away from baseball? Can anyone unconvince me that the only reason he is admitting this now is because he only has two more years to be eligible for the Hall of Fame?

I stand where I stood before the admission. Let him into the Hall of Fame, but never again on the baseball fields in this great sport. And one more thing, if Bud Selig allows Rose to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, he should also reinstate "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, who has a much more compelling reason to be there than Rose.

The two men who should gain election in the Hall of Fame, without all the hoopla are Dennis Eckersley and Paul Molitor. Some will downplay Eckersley's career, but his career did two things. First, he put up the numbers: He won 197 games (three less than David Wells) and he saved 390 games. By my math, that means that Eckersley had a hand in 594 wins in his career.

Secondly, Eckersley changed the game and that alone should put him in the Hall of Fame. Before Eckersley, pitchers like Sutter and Gossage and Rollie Fingers pitched several innings a game and played their whole careers as relievers. By the way, all three of those pitchers should be in the Hall of Fame and only one is.

Since the Eckersley years, the closer is a one inning specialist and his career led to relievers like Tom Gordan, John Smoltz, Kevin Foulke, Jason Isringhausen and before them, Dave Righetti and Tom Henke. Anyone who changes the game belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Molitor should be a no-brainer. The lame argument that he spent a lot of time as a DH doesn't hold up in that he wasn't a lumbering guy at the end of his career banging homeruns and limping around the diamond. He stole fifty bases after the age of forty. Molitor didn't go out with a whimper. He batted .341, .305 and .281 the last three years of his career. He stole 504 bases in his career. He hit 605 doubles, 114 triples and 234 homers to go along with his 3319 hits and .306 lifetime batting average. My case rests.