Pete Rose has finally admitted what everyone already knew — he bet on baseball.

Why is this supposed to make me more sympathetic to his bid to re-enter the game of baseball? All this admissions says to me is, “Hey, I’m not only fixer, but I’m a lying jerk too!”

The man’s still deep in denial:

During the times I gambled as a manager, I never took an unfair advantage. I never bet more or less based on injuries or inside information. I never allowed my wagers to influence my baseball decisions. So in my mind, I wasn’t corrupt.

Uh-huh. And he supposedly never bet against his team. But anytime he did not place a bet on the Reds to win it was a clear signal to his bookies that he thought they couldn’t or wouldn’t win that night. And how do we truly know that he didn’t pitch a guy on short rest to get a win on a certain night, or use up his bullpen to get a win and collect big time?

He lied for 14 years because he “never had the opportunity to tell anybody that was going to help” him, he writes in his new book. Again, it’s all about Pete Rose. Now that it seems to be interest to tell the truth, or at least something more truthful than the bald-faced lies he’s been telling for years, he tells it.

The real truth is still unknown, and can probably never be discovered. Pete Rose should never be allowed to be involved in the management of any major-league baseball team on any level. I’d never to go a game in which he had some involvement.

That said, I don’t see why the baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame can’t determine on their own whether Rose’s accomplishments outweigh his sins. A Hall plaque doesn’t put the honesty of the game in any danger. Indeed, a plaque could and should note why he was banned from the game. Shoeless Joe deserves the same shot at the Hall.

The criteria obviously allow the voters to commit or omit any name from the ballot for any reason. They wouldn’t have kept Ron Santo out of the Hall for so many years based on sound reasoning, that’s for sure.