We disagree here. Rose gambled but there is no proof that any of his gambling affected the outcome of any game. In contrast, steroid use has probably affected the outcome of every single game played in the past two decades; there is certainly ample proof that many games were affected by it. Which is more damaging?
Gambling is, for the reason I stated above.
Don't get me wrong. Steroids are a cancer on the game, and steroid use should result in a lifetime ban.
But a manager who bets on his own games can influence the outcome to suit his pocketbook and not the best interests of the club. We don't know that Rose didn't, in fact, rest his best hitters on days when he needed a certain spread. We don't know if he gave hitters the "take" sign or influence baserunning in order to preserve the margin of other team's lead or his own.
Regardless, it doesn't matter. Steroids are a red herring. This is about personal responsibility. Those were the rules, he knew those were the rules, he knowingly broke the rules, and now he wants to be let out of the consequences. He only admitted some of his lies when he had a financial interest in admitting them. I say no. I believe in personal responsibility, and Rose refuses to take full responsibility for his actions.