The Daily editors assert that what Pete Rose did, gambling on baseball games while he was a coach and manager, was merely offensive, not different from players doing drugs (Daily editorial, Thurs. July 15).ÿ

They say Bud Selig, Commissioner ofÿMajor League Baseball, should “lighten up” and lift the ban on Rose’s eligibility for the Hall of Fame.ÿI disagree vehemently.

Gambling on the outcome of sports by players, coaches and managers strikes at the integrity of the competition.ÿ

Fans expect clean competition with every participant doing his or her best to win.ÿGambling by participants would destroy fans’ confidence that the game’s outcome was determined by ability alone.ÿ

It would be rather like cheating on an exam, wouldn’t it?ÿI guess the Daily’s editors would find cheating on an exam merely offensive, not morally repugnant.

Whereas drug use is offensive and should be punished because it sets a bad example for youth, it does not have the same potential for destroying the integrity of a sport like gambling does.ÿ

Further, the Daily editors say that baseball has ” … been historically plagued with pay-offs and run-shaving.” I challenge the editors to document their “historically plagued” assertion.ÿ

Were there occurrences other than the Black Sox scandal of 80 years ago?ÿTo me “historically plagued” has the inference of “continually.”ÿ

Richard Shibles

Professor emeritus

Agronomy