ESPN Radio occasionally plays a clip of a Pete Rose interview on the Dan patrick Show in which he states"I was suspended from baseball for betting on football. I have a signed document from the commisioner that says that there are no findings that I bet on baseball. To me that puts the question to rest. It says that ther's no finding or admission that I bet on baseball. I've lived up to my part of the agreement but they (MLB) haven't lived up to theirs...I know it says a lifetime ban, but I didn't look at it that way, because I could apply for reinstatement in one year..."

Well, I don't know why ESPN keeps playing this clip, whether it's because they believe him or because they don't, but you'd certainly think that their continued use of their own airtime to play this clip somehow indicates support for Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy. The thing is, Rose is lying, but then, what else is new? At the very least he's bending the truth. The agreement he signed, which can be seen in its entirety here, actually says:

Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.

But what Charlie Hustle(r) doesn't tell you is that this statement occurs in the following context:

a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List.

b. Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement.

c. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.

Neither the Commissioner nor Peter Edward Rose shall be prevented by this agreement from making any public statement relating to this matter so long as no such public statement contradicts the terms of this agreement and resolution.

And of course, he really doesn't want you to know that it says:

4. Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise. He also agrees he will not institute any legal proceedings of any nature against the Commissioner of any of his representatives, either Major League or any Major League Club. (bold added)

Well the rule doesn't say that someone can be suspended from baseball for betting at all, or betting on football, it says:

Rule 21(d):

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.

So if he admits that there's a "factual basis to impose the penalty" then why didn't he contend at the time that the punishment he was receiving was inappropriate and not warranted by the rules of MLB?

The answer is simple: he couldn't, because he understood that he was being suspended permanently because there was overwhelming evidence of his betting on baseball games, including Reds games he managed, and he knew it. He didn't want to admit it, so he signed, anticipating that he could apply for reinstatement in one year, but with no guarantee that his application would be granted, and acknowledging that he would not challenge either the penalty itself, the agreement, or the commisioner's response to his applications for reinstatement. And, of course, he has done just that, any chance he gets. So it's actually Rose who has not held up his end of the bargain, rather than the Commisioner's office, as Pete would have you believe.