It's just a difference in what effects the game and what doesn't. (I also think had those spitballer's came to light BEFORE they were inducted, they wouldn't be.
Gaylord Perry's spitter was a well-known fact in MLB circles.
And here's something you must remember about Shoeless Joe; the man hit .360 in the World Series that he was allegedly trying to throw (hey, that rhymes!)
Iin an interview I did with Bill James he pointed out a few things in regards to Jackson:
1. He not only accepted the money, he asked for more. 2. He admitted to "just poking at the ball" in key situations. 3. Writers referred to times where Jackson threw to the wrong base in key situations in their losses. 4. For someone who was supposedly one of the best fielders in baseball history, it is hard to inagine THREE TRIPLES BEING HIT TO LEFTFIELD in the series. You can go a whose season and not see more than one.
from James: "People who think Jackson was innocent remind me of the lonely women wanting to marry the handsome convicted killer."
George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
Here's the catch 22: Once Rose admits to betting on baseball, he must be banned according to the rules of the game. So, if he comes clean and apologizes, then Selig shouldn't lift the ban, according to the rules of baseball (not that Selig gives a damn about those rules). Furthermore, it does not make a whit of difference whether or not he bet on his team to lose. If he bets on his team to win, but then does NOT place a bet on some other game involving the Reds, doesn't that send a message to the gamblers to bet on the Reds to lose? One of the strongest and most compelling arguments (in short form, that is) as to why Rose should not be reinstated was written by Rob Neyer on espn.com a couple of weeks ago. Here is the link: http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1475194.html
Isn't it important that they got it right? It's not like the umps broke tradition and used replay in the game to correct the call. (Not that I'm not biased as well, but on the replay you could see the ball hitting the ground before he gloved it.)