Whatever happened to reasonable doubt?

Steroid apologists go to this all the time - we are not depriving Pete Rose of rights here. Resaonble doubt is a legal standard, something which must be taken into account before the state deprives a man of his constitutionally recognized rights. No one has the right to enter the Hall of Fame. Yes, Pete Rose's play did merit entry into the HOF in my opinion, but he denied himself entry by breaking baseball's most serious rule.

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

Wife-beaters aren't banned from baseball for beating their wives because baseball has no rule expressly forbidding wife-beating. But baseball does have a rule, established long before Rose made the major leagues, against gambling. That is the difference.

But getting back to Rose's style of managing - does it not seem logical that if Rose had a bet riding on a particular game that he would manage it differently? Let's say I managed the Yankees and I bet on them to win tonight against Boston. I've got a one-run lead in the ninth with the heart of the Red Sox order coming up. I shouldn't use Rivera here because he's been overworked lately, but I do have $50,000 riding on it. Why wouldn't I use Rivera? What's three more outs here, two innings there? This is what happens.