Yakuza Rich;4600865 said:
1. Yes, unless he was found gambling against his own team. Some say he did. But, there's no competitive advantage to betting on your own team nor, when all is said and done, tarnish the game.
This is absolutely not true. If you manage differently in games where you've bet on your team than in games where you haven't, you've tarnished the game. And since there's no definitive way to prove that you didn't let the betting affect your managing (although there's reason in Rose's case to believe that it did), the very fact of the betting tarnishes the game by introducing uncertainty about its integrity.
And of course, none of that matters, because gambling on baseball is blatantly, specifically and outrageously against the rules, for really good reasons. The details of who you bet on matter not at all.
Rose shouldn't even be allowed in the HOF if he buys a ticket.
On the steroid guys, I think speculation should never be enough reason to keep someone out. Where there's proof ("preponderance of the evidence" type proof, not "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof), I can understand voters declining to support guys. Personally, I'd put McGwire in for sure and probably Clemens as well, but I'm not as hung up on the whole PED as most seem to be.