well, isn't being banned for breaking the rule against gambling the same as being banned for gambling?

If you can prove for certain that Rose's betting effected the way he managed his team, then I would say the lifetime ban should stick. But I don't think we can prove it for certain, we can only suspect it. Whatever happened to reasonable doubt?

You ask about player x beating his wife or player y's racism effecting the outcome of a game, what about the juicers? Surely it can be argued that they effected the outcomes of games? I'd say the results of any game, where the runs that Bonds or McGwire scored effect the outcome, is in question. They have tainted the most significant records in baseball and are not given a lifetime ban and Rose is. How is that fair?