So one more time... other than the fact that Gretz is already in the HoF, how is his case different than Roses?
Both were icons of their respective sports, neither was convicted (or in Gretz's case - will be convicted) of gambling by lawful authorities. Each of them was Head coach / Manager in the respective leagues when the allegations boke. Each is acused of Proxing their bets through other people.
Umm, who is accusing Gretzky of placing bets through others?
After the Dowd report was released, did you really think that Pete Rose did not bet on baseball? Would any reasonable person? I can't believe this is even a point of contention. The man bet on baseball, MLB knew, but did not suspend him based on that because Rose refused to face the accusation after MLB gave him two opportunities. Instead, he voluntarily banished himself rather than facing the overwhelming evidence against him. In exchange, MLB said they would not persue the matter further, would not make a ruling one way or the other. Despite this, just a few days later, Bart Giamatti said he believed that Pete Rose bet on baseball.
This isn't even close to a Pete Rose situation, despite what talk show people want to say to get ratings. Pete Rose bet on baseball. Pete Rose bet on the Reds. Just because he never admitted it or MLB is prohibited from saying so does not make the evidence disappear.