(Editor’s note: With a new commissioner in office, talk has renewed about the possibility that Pete Rose could gain reinstatement to Major League Baseball. Here, in a guest column, we present the view of the man who was deputy commissioner when Rose agreed to a ban from MLB and later became the eighth commissioner of MLB.)

On the topic of whether Pete Rose should be pardoned by the new Commissioner, Rob Manfred, I begin with two important contentions. One is that the Rose case is not about Pete Rose but is rather about whether baseball should alter the deterrent against gambling that has been so effective. The second is that any commissioner who alters that deterrent then owns the full risks of any future gambling scandals that might occur.

The new commissioner will carefully be mindful of his duties to protect the game. As is often the case, the definition of the issue governs the debate. Rose wishes the debate to play out on the issue of whether he has been punished sufficiently and whether he deserves mercy.

His claim is he has been kept out of baseball since 1989 with the loss of substantial income. Moreover, he argues he has suffered enough for his mistakes and that he now fully understands both the harm he caused to baseball and why his deferred apology is so necessary. He says he is sorry, but even now he has trouble sounding sincere.

Many who pay attention to this recurring debate were not around when Rose signed his fateful agreement with Major League Baseball. I not only negotiated the agreement, but also drafted it and was the witness to Commissioner Bart Giamatti’s signature.

Rose agreed to being placed on “the permanently ineligible list.” There is nothing in the agreement about his being reinstated, though under the Major League Agreement, which is the baseball version of the constitution in our sport, anyone on the ineligible list may at the end of one year petition the commissioner to be reinstated.

On several occasions, Rose petitioned the then Commissioner Bud Selig for relief, but Selig never issued a ruling either denying or granting the request. Selig simply did nothing. Now Rose seems to be preparing to renew his request to Manfred.

Manfred owes Rose and baseball fans a decision. The petition should be denied without comment. I suggest the issue is clear. There has been virtually no gambling within official baseball since the grim Black Sox scandal that arose after the 1919 World Series. One reason Rose has such a challenge on his hands when he seeks to change this deterrent is that it has been so wonderfully effective.

That deterrent is the only capital crime in baseball. Under Rule 21, anyone who bets on a game in which he has an interest is placed on the “Permanently Ineligible List” as was Rose. The person placed on that list is effectively unable to be any form of participant in official baseball. And in a telling historical fact, no one has ever been reinstated from that list to full rights in baseball. The message to all in the game is a draconian one. Bet on a game as a player or other participant and you are out of baseball for life.

The ancient adage is that one ought to temper justice with mercy. I see this as a case where justice has been fully served. Bart gave Rose a full opportunity to make a defense, but there was no defense to be made because Rose had been betting on baseball for years, and we had carefully collected overwhelming evidence of his gambling.

In the Agreement Bart signed with Rose, Rose agreed to his punishment “without admitting or denying he bet on Major League Baseball games.” Yet for some 15 or more years after he signed that agreement, Rose violated that provision by aggressively denying he had ever bet on baseball.

Finally, when Rose was offered a significant financial incentive to tell the truth in a book, he finally came clean and admitted he bet on games as the Reds’ manager. Rose is a man of commerce. He knows that if he were able to work in baseball he would be able to earn some real money.

Moreover, even if he continues to be prohibited from working again in baseball, he would profit substantially if he were to be elected to the Hall of Fame. He cannot be appointed by the commissioner to the HOF and under current rules has to be elected by a so-called veterans committee.

At present, Rose sits in a booth at a Las Vegas casino and gets paid to autograph baseball memorabilia for his fans. If he were ever elected to the Hall of Fame his financial fortune would surely improve. But things are not that simple.

I believe Rose is foolish to seek reinstatement. I believe his chances are better to seek some ruling from Manfred that keeps Rose from working in baseball but would permit him to be eligible for election to the Hall of Fame. I suspect that is his real objective in any event.

The HOF rules deny election to anyone on the MLB Ineligible List. If Manfred were to place Rose on another list that kept Rose out of baseball Rose could then seek admission to the HOF.

But then the HOF members could have their say. Many old-time players are opposed because they see Rose as a cheater. Some younger players might be tempted to support Rose, but the HOF requires that to gain election one must achieve the favorable vote of three quarters of the members of the voting committee.

If Marvin Miller cannot get that vote in the special committee that governs his situation, my guess is Rose would have similar problems with the committee.

Importantly, Manfred cannot put Rose in the HOF and if he acts to reinstate Rose he is admitting he would be willing to have Rose on the field again. I have too much faith in Manfred to believe he wants to endorse Rose as a person who warrants being active again within baseball. He will not want Rose back in the game.

Finally, the Rose case presents the complex question of baseball and so-called Performance Enhancing Drugs. And any move by Manfred will bring the attention of Congress to question why Baseball is acting to weaken the deterrent to gambling. Congress will ask whether this Rose move means the users of PEDs are also to be treated to lesser sanctions. If baseball says we no longer feel betting should keep Rose out, how can Congress not worry the users of PEDs are next to have their sanctions reduced. Not much in baseball stands apart from other important concerns.

Our new commissioner should choose his fights carefully. He does not need to do anything about Rose. He should stand firmly against gambling in baseball and behind the effective deterrent. Not much in our world can stand the test of time as well as has the ancient wisdom of Rule 21. Bet on our game and you are gone. What can be clearer?

There is no good reason to change that rule and certainly mercy for Rose is a bad reason. Justice works and mercy is often misunderstood.