Baseball, Mitchell Report, Steroids and my hero Pete Rose

I want to preface this whole post by saying that in 1989 when world series earthquake hit, I was still watching Baseball. On Oct 17 1989 I was watching the game and all of sudden everything started to shake on tv and the picture went out I heard sound - sort of something like - I think we are having an earthquake. Then Roseanne come on. And I was PISSED! It was the day before my 12th birthday.

I continued to follow baseball until 1994 when baseball went on strike.

Since then I have only followed it half heartedly. When the Red Sox won the World Series for the first - I watched all but one game.
And I have watched baseball every once in awhile since then.

However growing up I actually had a baseball hero and it was Pete Rose. (yes i was a phillies fan - he and Mike Schmidt were two of my fave players)
For those of you who know me now may find this amusing as I am now a HUGEMONGOUS Football fan.
But I still have a soft spot in my heart for Pete and Baseball (so much so that i watched wrestling for the longest time just to see if pete would show up at wrestlemania ;) )

Anyway to get to the point as you may know the Mitchell Report was released yesterday naming multiple players who were substance abusers and who are potential hall of famers.
Roger Clemens being one of them (he denies the use though- um duh of course he does but Barry Bonds is another one.)

My beef with this whole substance abuse thing is that players have been doing it and lying about it for years. Now a lot of people will say that it shouldnt matter because you still have to have talent and blah blah blah. But Pete Rose bets on baseball specifically bets on baseball for his team to win and yes he lied about it , but now he has been denied entrance into the Hall of Fame until all of these people who are blocking him are no longer on the committee and those who could give two shits about his gambling are able to vote him in.
Does this constitute him not being allowed in the hall of fame?
he never cheated, didnt use drugs and yet we wont let him in to the Cooperstown because as a manager he bet on his team to win?
But there are players that are in the hall of fame or will be in the hall of fame because they used steroids or blood doping. Does this make them less or more evil then Pete? Pete confessed to lying, he has paid his dues in my opinion.
This makes no sense
So here is my question - if Roger Clemens is found guilty of violating the baseballs substance abuse policy that was in place at the time (and I hope he isnt because he is a good athlete) should he be denied entrance into the Baseball Hall of Fame? How about Barry Bonds?
How do we know that if these players didnt use the steroids or blood doping that they would be hall of fame athletes ?
How do we know this report is even legit?

Ok so all that rant really leads to my point which is-that I think the Hall of Fame committee needs to reconsider letting Pete Rose into the Goddamn Hall of Fame.