He Disagrees Strongly With Murray on Rose

I stopped taking Jim Murray seriously when I grew up, but his May 11 column cannot go without a response.

In yet another dishonest defense of a dishonest man, Pete Rose, Murray says Charlie Hustler--uh, Hustle--was denied due process.

Fact: Rose filed an illegal and fraudulent lawsuit against Commissioner Bart Giamatti, not the other way around. It was filed in a Cincinnati court, where the judge issued a temporary restraining order, which even the Cincinnati media called “a home-court decision.”

If Rose was innocent, why would he accept a lifetime suspension? Why would any innocent man?

Murray notes that Rose is ineligible for the Hall of Fame ballot, but falsely states, “The reasons have never been sufficiently explained.”

The reasons could not be more obvious: Murray and his kind were ready to induct Rose even though he was on the Commissioner’s ineligible list--never mind the fact Murray and his kind took it upon themselves to keep Joe Jackson off the ballot for 55 years, even though they were under no legal restraint to do so.

RICHARD BLUE

Los Angeles