Should sports gambling still keep Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame?
Pete Rose didn't live to see himself removed from baseball's banned list. Neither did 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson. But Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred lifted the ban on both players last week, along with a slew of others, under pressure from President Donald Trump. Their reinstatement also means that a committee will now decide if they belong in the Hall of Fame. The rest of us have opinions, too — and that's why there are columnists! Joining me now are two of the very best on this topic, The Post's Sally Jenkins and Will Leitch.
💬 💬 💬
Matt Bai It probably seems odd to a lot of casual fans that we're still talking about betting like it's a mortal sin, even though you can't watch a ballgame now without being constantly assaulted by three-way parlays. Let me ask you both: What do we think is really going on here? Is the commissioner admitting that times have changed? Or does he just want to get Trump and the Rose family off his back and make it the sportswriters' problem?
Will Leitch I think it's far more the latter. Rose's history with gambling had, in the wake of baseball's embrace of gambling revenue, become an inconvenience that MLB had tried to mostly whistle past. (MLB's statement when Rose died was unmistakably muted.) But Trump is a problem that had to be dealt with. I suspect MLB's decision was, essentially, 'give him this one thing and he'll leave us, and our antitrust exemption, alone.' It's basically NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's strategy with Trump too: Appease him, and then get what you want when he's distracted.
Matt Because we know that appeasing Trump always works.
Sally Jenkins The fact that times have changed regarding fan betting has nothing at all to do with prohibiting players from gambling, which crooks the whole deal. So it seems to me he just wanted the president off his back, and to shift responsibility to the Hall of Fame committee members. If the change of attitude toward fan betting was part of his logic, it was totally illogical and incredibly dumb conflation.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Matt Yeah, that's my sense as well. Betting on ballgames is still a bright-red line. But I imagine he's tired of having to explain why casinos can sponsor teams but Pete Rose can't get onto the Hall of Fame ballot.
Will The thing that I find so strange about the statement itself is the notion that now 'permanent' bans end when you die.
Sally Well, as John Dowd said to me, 'Reputation survives death.' The ability to inflict harm posthumously is real. This is an open invitation for players, managers and even umpires to ignore Rule 21. What Manfred has done is invite current players to bet on the games and still have hope to be inducted.
Matt Let me ask the billion-dollar question: Should Pete Rose, or Shoeless Joe for that matter, be in the Hall? How would you vote?
Sally I would vote a total NO on both counts. Shoeless Joe took $5,000 in 1919 — equivalent to almost $100,000 today — to throw games.
Will MLB does have the advantage that we are two years away from anything being decided. I honestly think a lot of it will ride on what the political environment is in 2027, when the committee next meets. I mean, I just hope we're all still alive in 2027. At a certain level, I think the move to induct Rose and Jackson, as sort of soulless and craven as it is, makes a certain strategic sense.
Matt Bleak, Will, very bleak.
Will Give Trump what he's asking for. (It's worth noting that ESPN reported that Manfred indeed called Trump after he made his decision.) And then hope he gets distracted and moves on to something else. Then you get to do what you want.
Sally By the way, Trump is a guy who lies through his teeth about his baseball prowess.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Matt Sally, does it make any difference that Rose didn't actually bet against his own team? Or at least there's never been any allegation of that. He was still trying to win, as far as we know, which seems different to me than throwing a game, like Shoeless Joe might have done.
Sally I think it makes no difference at all that Rose bet on his own team. Betting on your own team, especially as a player-manager, is, in a way, worse. You can influence lineups, pitchers, stats. You can influence all kinds of factors — for one thing, you're exercising inside knowledge and info. It's a dirtbag thing to do. It defrauds others.
Will Also, if you were a gambler watching which Reds games Rose bet on, you definitely took note of the ones he did not.
Sally TOTALLY.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Matt All right, you guys are unforgiving on this, but let me try one other angle at magnanimity. Do we really want to judge Hall of Fame credentials by morality? I mean, if we're going to go into the Hall and start removing everybody who wasn't a great character, we'll need a much smaller building.
Sally Right, the Ty Cobb argument. This isn't necessarily a moral issue — it's a gambling issue. You destroy the credibility of the game itself. Ty Cobb was a bad guy, but the problem with players and managers betting on the games is they compromise everything and everybody.
Will I totally agree. I don't think Rose shouldn't be in the Hall because he was a jerk. (Though, I highly recommend Keith O'Brien's new biography of him for a full accounting of who Rose was.) He shouldn't be in the Hall because gambling is literally one rule that you cannot break. It's posted on the wall of every clubhouse in baseball — still. It is the fundamental rule of the sport — of any sport.
Sally As my friend David Von Drehle says, it's a nihilistic suicide-homicide thing to do to the game. It really is. Gambling removes the idea that the outcome is unknown.
Will Which is really the fundamental reason to watch sports in the first place.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Matt Last question: How crazy are the odds I'd have to give you to bet that Rose does make the Hall? Three to one?
Will I think it's more likely than that. I might put it at 50-50.
Sally I also think it's 50-50.
Will But again: Let's see where we all are in 2027. (Hopefully still here!)
Sally Maybe by then, Will, another gambler's notebook could show up, with evidence he bet against his own team. This is a real hazard for the Hall, because you can't count on a word Rose ever said. He denied gambling. He denied gambling on the Reds. He denied corking bats.
Matt Those are better odds than I'd give Republicans of still controlling the House by then.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
8 minutes ago
- UPI
The Jeffrey Epstein saga: a new national security threat?
U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman speaks during a news conference about the arrest of American financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York on July 8, 2019, on sex trafficking charges, File photo by Jason Szenes July 30 (UPI) -- The sordid saga of the long dead and convicted predator Jeffrey Epstein not only poses a threat to Donald Trump's presidency, but it also conceivably threatens the credibility of the U.S. political system. Yet, an even more sinister and potentially dangerous threat lurks for the United States and its friends. The two threats are linked, ironically, by Epstein's ghost. Trump's MAGA base is furious that the promised Epstein files have not been released. What's worse is that that Attorney General Pam Bondi apparently informed Trump his name was in the file -- high-test fuel for that blaze. And, now, possibly to deflect attention, Trump and his director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, have accused former President Barack Obama of treason by interfering in the 2016 election with Russian help. In a nation as politically divided as America, any spark could ignite a political firestorm. Beijing, Moscow and others with malicious intent are intensely watching this saga. One conclusion must be that even greater opportunities exist today to interfere in United States and Western politics, not just exploiting this debacle. More importantly, creating new crises that manipulate and fracture political and social cohesion is a formidable danger. The U.K.'s Brexit is an example of manipulation. In the effort to withdraw from the European Union -- the Leave campaign -- former Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his key adviser, Dominic Cummings determined that 1 million or so Britons lacked party affiliation. Then, using social media, this group was targeted with Leave propaganda generated by Cummings. That swung the vote to leave. Cummings was not alone. Substantial evidence exists that Moscow helped influence Brexit and the Leave campaign to weaken the Atlantic Alliance. And Moscow also interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. Consider the infamous Steele Dossier. Among the allegations, the dossier accused Trump of lewd sexual behavior in Moscow. Suspend reality and imagine Vladimir Putin intervened to help elect Hillary Clinton as president in 2016. Following Cummings' lead, Russian trolls would have filled the Internet with deep-fake photos and invented stories exaggerating or inventing Trump's misconduct. One wonders who might have been elected 45th president. China and Moscow have significant interests in manipulating and fracturing American and Western cohesion. Putin is focused on winning in Ukraine, minimizing sanctions, and in the process, weakening Western solidarity. China is keen on reducing American economic and political influence, as well as annexing Taiwan. It would be negligent to not assume China and Russia are identifying critical weaknesses and potential future fracture points in the United States and elsewhere. In that event where might they focus? National political systems, given the Epstein debacle and national infrastructures, are the two most obvious candidates. Regarding the United States, the Constitution and its system of government based on checks and balances and a division of power among three co-equal branches are the best targets. A super-majority of Americans is highly distrustful and disdainful of government. Exploiting this distrust would not be difficult using the ubiquity of social media and the propensity of Americans to embrace conspiracy theories. Epstein and the Steele Dossier are two examples of how possible future fractures can be invented to sow political, social and economic disruption. The difference is that these effects could be even more destructive. Regarding infrastructure, Israeli and Ukrainian infiltration of two societies with seeming control of their borders and people to launch surprise attacks deep into Iran and Russia underscores how potentially vulnerable military bases and installations are to drones. And even more susceptible to drone attacks are electric generation and power grids, which could cause nationwide disruption. Kinetic attacks on military and civilian infrastructure are fraught with risk. But perceived threats are not. The strategy would be to use a variant of Orson Welles' provocation of massive public and psychological panic in his radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938. Consider future Wellesian scenarios on steroids that threaten catastrophic events or apply fake news reports of spreading epidemics or environmental, financial and other disasters to induce fear and disruption. Concocting new and credible conspiracy theories would be part of this disruptive strategy. None of this is new. The USSR used the Comintern, Cominform and KGB to misinform, disinform, disrupt and provoke. The United States and the U.K. employed similar techniques principally against the Nazis in World War II. However, today is different because social and other media can turn these activities into political weapons of mass disruption. The United States will survive Epstein. Against determined adversaries who intend to create and exploit new political fractures, are the United States and the West ready? That answer is sadly no. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Best Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
USA Today
8 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas redistricting: Republicans propose new map, Democrats try to counter
WASHINGTON − An ongoing effort by Republicans to redraw Texas' congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections continues to agitate Democrats across the country, as they search for ways to block or counter an initiative sought by President Donald Trump. The White House has urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and state Republicans to advance on a rare mid-decade redistricting, with the hope that shifting boundaries could help the party pick up as many as five seats in next year's race for control of the U.S. House. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, and the GOP are hoping the boost can help them hang onto their razor-thin lower chamber majority during the final two years of Trump's second term and amid the 2028 race for the White House. Texas Democrats balked when Abbott agreed to add redistricting to their to-do list for a 30-day special session that began July 21 in Austin. Now, liberal lawmakers are crying foul with blue state governors threatening tit-for-tat responses and Texas Democrats weighing their own limited protest options as the GOP seeks to make major changes to the critical voter boundary lines that make up the nation's second largest congressional delegation. Here's the latest to know on the controversial redistricting effort happening in the Lone Star State. What could a new map look like? Texas Republicans released their proposed new map on July 30. Ahead of the official release, Punchbowl News first reported that the anticipated redraw would shift district boundaries around Dallas, Houston, Austin and the Rio Grande Valley. There would still be 38 total seats in the Texas delegation under the new maps - leaving it second only to California's 52 seats. But five Texas seats would be redrawn in a bid that Republican envision giving their candidates a leg up with more GOP voters. Democrats who at risk of losing their spot in Congress include Reps. Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez and Marc Veasey, according to Punchbowl. Democrats charge partisan law violation The rare push to redraw the boundary lines has led Democratic senators to accuse Trump administration officials of breaking a decades-old law limiting executive branch employees from engaging in partisan activities − such as advocating for a state's redistricting in order to benefit their political party. In a letter to the Office of Special Counsel, California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, along with Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse and Illinois' Dick Durbin, called for an investigation into members of Trump's White House and Justice Department, accusing them of breaking the Hatch Act. "The purpose of this redistricting push is to defeat Democratic Members of Congress and elect Republicans to affect the balance of political party power in the 120th Congress," the senators wrote. "While such goals are appropriate for a political party organization, they are not appropriate for executive branch officials," they added, "especially at the Department of Justice which must take greater steps to ensure it acts with impartiality." The Hatch Act does not apply to the president or vice president. Hakeem Jeffries took a trip to Texas House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, made a trip to Texas July 30, the same day Republicans released their proposed map. While there, Politico reported that Jeffries planned to meet with Rep. Al Green, a Houston lawmaker whose district could be caught in the crosshairs of a major map shake up. "We understand that this is all hands on deck for us in the Democratic Party," Green told Politico. Jeffries has been vocal in his opposition to the redistricting plans, saying in a July 15 press conference, "Texas Republicans are likely going to continue to act like political punks and bend the knee to Donald Trump's extreme agenda." Later, he told CNN, regarding Democrats' response: "Let me just simply say the maps in New York are not as fair as they could be." Redistricting arms race could ensue Jeffries is not the only blue state lawmaker proposing an equal and opposite reaction to Texas. Democrats coast-to-coast have promised a full-scale counterattack, should the Lone Star State move forward with redistricting. "We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people," Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Democrat from Washington and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters at a meeting July 23. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has suggested a redistricting in his state to offset Republican actions. (But unlike in Texas where legislators decide district lines, Newsom does face a major obstacle in the form of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps.) The response from Democrats has enticed other Republican-controlled states to potentially jump in too. Missouri Republicans are pondering a plan to give their party a geographical leg up, and legislatures in other states such as Florida and New Hampshire have the ability to reevaluate maps like Texas. Texas Democrats eye leaving the state Back in Texas, Democrats have a limited number of options to counter a GOP-controlled state House and Senate. Their primary tool is a controversial and seldom used move to flee the state and break the quorum necessary to proceed in the legislative session. State Democrats last used the measure in 2021 to protest new voting restrictions. After that episode, in which representatives halted operations for 38 days, Republicans approved a $500 a day fine for breaking quorum. The monetary punishment could be enough to give Democrats pause about leaving the state this time. However, the Texas Tribune reported deep-pocked Democratic donors are ready to assist and enable a potential walkout.
USA Today
8 minutes ago
- USA Today
MLB trade deadline 2025: Live updates with rumors, reactions, trade grades
Yankees acquire OF Austin Slater from White Sox @JackCurryYES on it The clock is ticking down to 6 p.m. ET on Thursday, July 31, 2025. That's when the 2025 MLB trade deadline is set to hit, which means that some contenders will want to upgrade their rosters in the hunt for a World Series and some also-rans will want to deal for some future stars. As we wait for the deals to come -- although we've seen a few that have come down the pike -- we're keeping you updated with the latest rumors, trade grades and reactions from baseball fans as they happen on Wednesday. Let's dive in with the names that are being thrown around and the rumors that involve teams: Yankees and White Sox make a deal for OF Austin Slater Austin Slater has an .859 OPS this year vs. lefties and has played all three OF spots — including a good amount of LF. Perhaps he could platoon with Jasson Domínguez. Or play RF with Judge out in games vs. southpaws. OK, fine. Yankees get a bench body. GRADE: B- Best available players at the 2025 MLB trade deadline Here they are: 1. 3B Eugenio Suarez, Arizona Diamondbacks 2. SP Joe Ryan, Minnesota Twins 3. OF Taylor Ward, Los Angeles Angels 3. OF Adolis Garcia, Texas Rangers 4. SP Dylan Cease, San Diego Padres 5. RP Jhoan Duran, Minnesota Twins 6. RP Ryan Helsley, St. Louis Cardinals 7. DH Marcell Ozuna, Atlanta Braves 8. 1B Ryan O'Hern, Baltimore Orioles 9. OF Cedric Mullins, Baltimore Orioles 10. OF Luis Robert Jr., Chicago White Sox Check out our complete list of rumored names available. What time is the 2025 MLB trade deadline? It's 6 p.m. ET on Thursday, July 31, 2025.
