4,256 hits and a lifetime batting average of .303. Statistically, it is virtually impossible to make a case against the man known as "Charlie Hustle", Pete Rose. But, and it's a big but, there is one small road block standing between Rose and Cooperstown; a lifetime ban from baseball. Admittedly, Rose spent years gambling on baseball while being a player and manager for the Cincinnati Reds, but is that worthy of a lifetime ban from the game? With all the flack baseball has been receiving in recent year over steroids issues, is it truly fair to keep Rose on the outs? You may question the link between Rose and Steroids, but the link is one that must be discussed. When Rose was banned in 1990, he was labeled a "cheater" and frowned upon by the league. But with the emergence of the Steroid Era, it is going to be entertaining to watch as the "mitchell report" players become eligible for the Hall. Some journalists have introduced the theory that because so many players were on steroids during that era, it did in fact level the playing field. While I understand this argument, it is preposterous to deny Rose the Hall of Fame. Rose's actions were unethical and should be frowned upon, but his career statistics are impossible to deny. A player should be judged by who he is on the field, not off the field. Stories about unethical players are not exactly unheard of when it comes to baseball. Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, and many other baseball players had the reputations of being alcoholics, but while unethical, these problems did not keep them out of the Hall of Fame. The fact of the matter is that while Rose's actions were unethical, they did not give him an unfair advantage in attaining his Hall of Fame statistics. Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, and it will be unfortunate if it takes his death to finally force reconsideration by the commisioner. Just like in the case of Michael Jackson and so many other deaths, America suddenly gains tons of sympathy for a celebrity upon death, which would be a shame for Rose.