If betting on games is over the line, is it over the line for owners to put gambling kiosks in the stadiums and directly profit from gambling revenue that is generated from the performance of teams that they own? It was never proven or even believed that Rose ever bet against his team. So the grey area becomes, since he is so close to the game, could he have conspired with an opponent to fix a game and benefit from his gambling? That is why I had previously opposed Rose going into the Hall of Fame. But are owners not so close to the game where it's impossible to think that they could give a direct order to a manager in an effort to try to affect the outcome of a game? I honestly don't think "baseball" (being owners, Hall of Fame voters) can have it both ways. Either ban the concept of owners making 1 penny off of gambling, or put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. And to state it again, I was 100% against Rose being in the Hall of Fame prior to a bunch of already filthy rich owners decided they needed to be involved in GAMBLING ON BASEBALL GAMES in order to put even more money in their pockets. I think your point only applies if the owners themselves are gambling on the outcome of the games which they could have done without the in-stadium sportsbooks and kiosks. I'm fine letting everyone in the hall of fame that performed on the field. For some reason, we treat it like getting beatified by the Catholic Church.