Latest news with #Rule21
Time of India
06-06-2025
- Sport
- Time of India
MLB welcomes back four suspended players, here's what comes next
Jay Groome and three others return to MLB after yearlong suspension for betting on baseball (Credit: AP photos) After serving one-year suspensions for violating Major League Baseball's strict gambling policy, four players have been cleared to return to action. San Diego Padres pitcher Jay Groome, Oakland Athletics reliever Michael Kelly, Philadelphia Phillies infielder José Rodríguez, and Arizona Diamondbacks reliever Andrew Saalfrank have all completed their suspensions handed down under Major League Rule 21. After yearlong betting bans, these 4 MLB stars are back—what it means for their teams The Athletics acted quickly, reinstating Kelly and left-hander T.J. McFarland, who had been recovering from injury. To make room on the roster, the team optioned right-handers Elvis Alvarado and Justin Sterner to Triple-A Las Vegas. The Diamondbacks chose a more cautious route, assigning Saalfrank to their Arizona Complex League affiliate. Jay Groome's future remains uncertain. According to The Athletic, Groome wasn't tendered a contract by the Padres, making him a free agent. The Phillies, on the other hand, haven't disclosed any decisions about Rodríguez's status. MLB reinstates 4 players (X) The suspensions stem from violations of Rule 21, MLB's longstanding policy against gambling. The rule, prominently displayed in every clubhouse, is unambiguous. Betting on games in which a player is not involved triggers a one-year suspension. But the consequences could have been far more severe. Had any of the players wagered on games they physically attended — even if they didn't play — they would have faced lifetime bans. All four players placed bets under $1,000, and Kelly's wagers occurred during his time in the minors. Saalfrank and Rodríguez had previously logged major league appearances, which added weight to their infractions. These reinstatements serve as a reminder that MLB continues to take gambling violations seriously — no matter the dollar amount. While these players now have a second chance to rebuild their careers, the shadow of their suspension won't fade overnight. The league's message remains clear: 'Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. ' As sports betting continues to gain legal ground across the country, MLB's zero-tolerance stance stands firm — upholding the integrity of the game above all else. Also Read: MLB All-Star Game 2025 voting begins: Full guide to dates, rules, and ballot picks
New York Times
05-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
They were suspended for betting on baseball. Now their teams are welcoming them back
A year after Major League Baseball suspended four players for betting on baseball, the sport now finds itself in the unusual situation of bringing the group back to the field — and their teams seem ready to welcome them back. Relievers Andrew Saalfrank and Michael Kelly, starter Jay Groome and infielder Jose Rodriguez were suspended for a calendar year on June 4, 2024, for violating Rule 21, which prohibits betting on baseball. Infielder Tucupita Marcano was also banned from the sport that day for betting more than $150,000 on baseball, including bets on Pittsburgh Pirates games while on their roster. Advertisement While the suspended quartet did gamble on MLB games — all as minor leaguers — none of their bets involved teams they were playing on. Now those players are welcome to resume their careers, and their teams appear to be ready to take them back. The Arizona Diamondbacks will bring back Saalfrank. The A's also plan to bring back Kelly. The San Diego Padres are still evaluating Groome's status with the organization, while the Philadelphia Phillies have welcomed Rodriguez back to their facility. That's all according to sources with the individual teams, who were granted anonymity to speak freely due to the sensitive nature of the issue. The suspensions were a shock for the sport. While baseball has a long and difficult history with gambling — from the Chicago Black Sox to Pete Rose's lifetime ban that last month was posthumously lifted, to interpreter Ippei Mizuhara recently funding his own bets with Shohei Ohtani's money — this was the first instance of players being caught using legal online betting companies. Earlier this spring, major league umpire Pat Hoberg was fired for sharing a sports betting account with a friend who bet on baseball. According to MLB's statement at the time, the league was informed of the betting activity by its sports book partners, and subsequently conducted an investigation. The league declined to answer if it has updated any protocols in the wake of these suspensions, and instead reiterated commissioner Rob Manfred's statement from the initial announcement. 'MLB will continue to invest heavily in integrity monitoring, educational programming and awareness initiatives with the goal of ensuring strict adherence to this fundamental rule of our game,' Manfred said as part of that statement. A spokesperson for the players' union declined comment for this story. Advertisement Even though all the suspended players are eligible to return, the teams are not actually required to bring them back. MLB and the Players Association agreed to a special carve-out, according to a league source, that allowed the players back into their teams' facilities 30 days before the expiration of their suspension. After June 5, the teams then have 10 days to decide whether to offer a contract to the players or non-tender them. The teams also have 30 days after June 5 to place the players on a roster, including a minor league affiliate. However, teams could use the development list to extend the ramp-up period. Both Saalfrank, 27, and Kelly, 32, were important pieces for their respective teams before their suspensions. Saalfrank was in Triple A, but made 11 postseason appearances during Arizona's World Series run in 2023. And Kelly had a 2.59 ERA in 28 appearances for Oakland ahead of his suspension. Groome, 26, was in Triple-A at the time of his suspension, and has yet to make his big league debut despite being the No. 12 pick in the 2016 draft. Rodriguez, 24, has played in just one big league game — with the Chicago White Sox in 2023. He played four games in the Dominican Winter League during his suspension. The bets in question weren't for significant sums. Saalfrank's bets totaled $445.87, which included 28 bets on baseball from Sept. 9, 2021, to March 9, 2022. At the time, he was a minor leaguer in the Diamondbacks' system. A team source said that Saalfrank has been apologetic and contrite, recognizing the mistake he made. It's expected that he — and all the players involved — will have to address the situation publicly when they start playing in games. Kelly bet a total of $99.22 over a 12-day span in October of 2021. At the time, Kelly was a Triple-A player in the Houston Astros' system, and three of his nine bets involved his team, which was competing in the postseason. He was the only player to end up with a profit, making a net of $28.30. Advertisement Groome bet $453.74 on baseball over three days in July 2021, while Rodriguez wagered $749.09 from September 2021 through June 2022. Representatives for Saalfrank and Kelly did not respond to multiple interview requests, and a representative for Groome declined comment. Neither of the players could be reached for comment. Leagues across the sports world have had to deal with the rise and ease of legalized sports betting, even while profiting financially from their partnerships. The Athletic has a business partnership with online sportsbook BetMGM. In the NBA, former Raptors forward Jontay Porter was banned for life for manipulating his playing time. Several NFL players have been suspended for gambling, most notably then-Atlanta Falcons receiver Calvin Ridley in 2022. College basketball has also dealt with serious issues over bets influencing the outcomes of games and individual player performances, leading to a federal investigation. An MLB spokesperson declined to say, when asked, if they believed these suspensions and the Marcano ban will be an effective deterrent in avoiding future issues. '(The enforcement of) rules and policies governing gambling conduct is a critical component of upholding our most important priority: protecting the integrity of our games for the fans,' Manfred wrote at the time of the suspensions. 'The longstanding prohibition against betting on Major League Baseball games by those in the sport has been a bedrock principle for over a century.' — The Athletic's Dennis Lin and Matt Gelb contributed reporting to this story. (Illustration: Demetrius Robinson / The Athletic; top photos: Michael Reaves, Brandon Sloter / Image Of Sport, Sean M. Haffey, Chris Bernacchi / Diamond Images / Getty Images)
Washington Post
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Should sports gambling still keep Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. 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.
Boston Globe
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
The commissioner made the right call on Pete Rose
Rose, who died last fall at age 83, represented an exquisite paradox. Over a singularly engaging playing career that spanned 1963 to 1986, he played with as much integrity, commitment, and verve as any player ever has, rising above his given talents to become baseball's all-time hit leader. Then, by extravagantly and recklessly betting on baseball while a player and a manager, Rose uniquely damaged the sport. These were not casual wagers. Rose, while in a position to affect the outcome of games, fell hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to people connected with organized crime. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Manfred's decision means that at some point soon — most likely in late 2027 — Rose may for the first time be voted on for induction into Cooperstown, an honor that since 1991 has been forbidden to any player on Major League Baseball's ineligible list. More precisely, Manfred's move supports the idea that there are differences between whether it might be dangerous to the game to allow a particular person to hold a job in Major League Baseball and whether that person has a right to be honored with induction into an institution that celebrates the game's history and top performers. Advertisement This was a logical decision by Manfred and one that he had signaled publicly for years. Whatever influential discussions Manfred has had in recent months with people pushing for Rose's reinstatement — among them Rose's attorney, Jeffrey M. Lenkov; Rose's daughter Fawn; and, quixotically, Donald Trump — the overriding factor that guided the commissioner is that Rose is dead. As Manfred wrote in his decision: 'In my view, a determination must be made regarding how the phrase 'permanently ineligible' should be interpreted in light of the purposes and policies behind Rule 21, which are to: (1) protect the game from individuals who pose a risk to the integrity of the sport by prohibiting the participation of such individuals; and (2) create a deterrent effect that reduces the likelihood of future violations by others. In my view, once an individual has passed away, the purposes of Rule 21 have been served. Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game.' Keeping a deceased ballplayer on the permanently ineligible list is akin to shaking a stick at a tombstone and shouting 'You'll never work in this town again!' *** For the first 55 years of the Hall of Fame's existence, Joe Jackson and the other White Sox players connected to the fixing of the 1919 World Series were eligible to be voted in despite being on baseball's permanently ineligible list. Those White Sox players could not hold jobs that gave them access to players, coaches, front office personnel, or other people associated with the game. They could not draw a paycheck from Major League Baseball. But there was no regulation that barred them from having a plaque in the Hall of Fame. Advertisement Jackson received votes over the years, although never anything close to the 75 percent required for induction. He had a career .356 batting average (third best all-time) and an overall performance profile that was clearly Hall of Fame caliber. Yet few voters could look past his role in throwing the World Series. (Some Shoeless Joe supporters defend him by pointing out that he played well in that Series, batting .375. But his words under oath are damning. 'We went ahead and threw the second game,' Jackson said. And when asked what he did with the $5,000 he received, Jackson testified: 'I put it in my pocket.') The 1919 'Black Sox' scandal deeply wounded the game and left a scar. Nearly a century later, while I was working on my book 'Pete Rose: An American Dilemma,' baseball executives regularly referenced 1919 in relation to Rose and his gambling. No evidence suggests that Rose tried to throw a game or that he bet against his own team. But he wagered heavily on games that he had the power to influence, and he wound up in serious debt and thus exposed to the influence of those he owed money to. Even when Rose was caught as clearly and as obviously as anyone could be caught, he denied betting on baseball right up to and well past the time of his banishment in 1989. When, years later, he finally confessed to that betting and issued a calculated apology, he never suggested that he would stop betting on the game. Advertisement *** At the 1989 press conference announcing that Rose would be placed on the permanently ineligible list, then-commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti was asked whether the ban would affect Rose's chances for the Hall of Fame. Giamatti, it is worth noting, was also plagued by the Rose paradox. Giamatti openly loved baseball and, it follows, loved Rose — his energy, his unstinting effort, his thorough passion for the game. 'Isn't he marvelous?' Giamatti said to a companion as they watched Rose gathering baseballs from around the Cincinnati Reds batting cage long before the gambling investigation began. Giamatti hated having to ban Rose, but Rose's actions left the commissioner no choice. As for the Hall of Fame question, Giamatti looked out at the assembled crowd of baseball writers and said this: 'I need not point out to the Baseball Writers of America that it is their responsibility who decides who goes into the Hall of Fame. It is not mine. You have the authority, and you have the responsibility. And you will make your own individual judgments.' Rose slid into third base in a game against the New York Mets in Philadelphia on June 3, 1981. RUSTY KENNEDY/Associated Press Giamatti's job, like every commissioner's, was to protect the integrity of the game and the institution, not to choose how someone might elsewhere be honored or not. He wanted no part of the Hall of Fame debate. It was two years later, after Giamatti had died and just before Rose's name was to first appear on the ballot, that the Hall of Fame's board of directors, goaded to act by then-baseball commissioner Fay Vincent, hastily concocted and put in place the rule determining that those on baseball's ineligible list were also ineligible for the Hall of Fame. Advertisement The rule targeted Rose, and it hit its target spectacularly. He became, and remains, the lone Hall of Fame-caliber player ever to be denied the chance to come up for vote. The rule had a holistic, generalized look to it but in practice a most narrow parameter. It might as well have said, 'All players are eligible for the Hall of Fame except those who wore number 14 and had more than 4,000 Major League hits.' *** In 2015, with Manfred newly installed as the successor to Commissioner Bud Selig, Rose petitioned for reinstatement. Manfred interviewed Rose and numerous others close to him and his life, and then he denied the request. It was not a difficult decision. Rose was at the time still betting regularly on baseball. Manfred would not be letting the fox back into the henhouse. Yet in announcing that denial, Manfred made the clear distinction that was in line with Giamatti's initial intent and would prove consistent with his ruling last week. 'Under the Major League Constitution,' Manfred wrote in 2015, 'my only concern has to be the protection of the integrity of play on the field…. It is not a part of my authority or responsibility here to make any determination concerning Mr. Rose's eligibility as a candidate for election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame.' Almost immediately, the Cincinnati Reds announced they would induct Rose into their team Hall of Fame — and the next season, with much local fanfare, they did. Cooperstown stood pat. Advertisement Despite the spurious nature of the Hall's 1991 rule, it's hard to argue that an injustice was done to Rose, who so clearly brought things upon himself. Nor is it a given that Rose wanted to get in, despite his public protestations. He knew that the controversy around him elevated his stature and appeal, helped make him a more coveted figure at autograph signings and paid appearances, and led to his starring in a scripted television show. 'Not being in the Hall of Fame — that's my shtick!' Rose once said to me. The injustice, if there is one, is to the fans of the sport and to the baseball writers' association that has been entrusted to represent those fans. Had Rose appeared on the ballot in 1991, he might have been voted in, or might not. We'll never know. In recent years all-time great performers and steroid users such as Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have come up for vote. Both of those players received support — more than 65 percent of the vote in their peak years — but haven't gotten in. The public has essentially spoken. If no changes are made to the Hall of Fame's eligibility rules, then Manfred's decision, as board chairman Jane Forbes Clark said, will allow for Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy. Because he is so long retired, Rose won't be voted on by the 700-plus baseball writers but instead will come before the Classic Baseball Era Committee, which next meets in December 2027. The Classic Baseball Era Committee is a 16-person group made up of Hall of Fame players, baseball executives and historians, and members of the media. To win election, a candidate must receive at least 12 votes. The committee will come together in Cooperstown, and nearly four decades after Rose's banishment, they will once again address the dilemma. They will look at his long record of achievement — incontrovertibly Hall-worthy — and they will consider the damage he did to the game, and they will ask themselves, 'Does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame?'
Edmonton Journal
14-05-2025
- Sport
- Edmonton Journal
Doors to Baseball Hall of Fame now open for the late Pete Rose
Article content Why was Rose banned from baseball? Rose was an addicted gambler who bet on baseball games in which he either played or managed, a direct contravention of MLB's Rule 21 pertaining to misconduct. Rumours about his betting activities began to swirl near the end of his playing career, prompting MLB to launch an investigation. Acting as special counsel to the commissioner, John Dowd delivered a damning, exhaustive 225-page report to MLB in May 1989. It was published on June 27, 1989, along with bank and telephone records, alleged betting slips and transcripts of interviews with Rose and other witnesses. Six days later, Sports Illustrated magazine published a comprehensive cover story that quoted Ron Peters, alleged to be Rose's bookie, saying Rose bet on baseball games, including those in which he acted as manager. Rose nonetheless continued to deny that he bet on baseball. However, he dropped his legal action against commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti and agreed to lifetime banishment in a deal that was announced on Aug. 23, 1989 and stated, in part:
