Pete Rose disqualified himself: Your Say

In his defense of Pete Rose and condemnation of MLB, columnist Paul Daugherty misses the point completely (“MLB shows petty vindictiveness in Pete Rose case: Column”).

It isn’t about fantasy sports but about a player going to the plate with a chance to alter the game for his own personal gain, or making managerial decisions for the same reason. Believing that Rose only bet on his team to win is absurd, and Rose being a savvy gambler, would admit such.

Bruce Lee; New Castle, Ind.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

We asked our Twitter followers what they thought about Major League Baseball’s refusal to lift the ban on Pete Rose for gambling. Comments are edited for clarity and grammar:

It is a travesty that Pete Rose is blocked from the Hall of Fame. He is the greatest player in the modern era, perhaps of all time.

— @Davehill777

Rose’s years as a player earned him a spot in the HOF. But his gambling should keep him out of baseball forever.

— @MidnightYell512

If Barry Bonds can be a coach, Rose shouldn’t be banned.

— @Dylanth20

A good play can be erased in sports by penalties. Charlie Hustle owns this disqualifying mistake.

— @Mcdoodad

It’s very hypocritical of MLB. It is an investor in DraftKings (a fantasy sports site), yet frowns on Rose still betting.

— @sincityzbest

For more discussions, follow @USATOpinion or #tellusatoday.