Wittenmyer & Williams: Is Rob Manfred a hypocrite about MLB's gambling deals, Pete Rose?
Welcome to Wittenmyer & Williams – a point/counterpoint column from Enquirer Reds reporter Gordon Wittenmyer and sports columnist Jason Williams. Here, the longtime friends, reunited after covering baseball together in Minnesota earlier in their careers, pick a hot baseball – or sometimes, non-baseball – topic and debate it.
Williams: Hey, I saw you asked Rob Manfred about baseball getting in bed with gambling and still leaving Pete Rose out in the cold while you were in Seattle.
Wittenmyer: Yeah, and did you hear what the guy had the gall to say? Dude must’ve overdone it on the extra sprinkles on his mocha Frappuccino at Starbucks because what he said made no sense.
Williams: All the commissioner said was “people who are in position to influence the outcome of the game” can’t bet on baseball. As he said, Rose “violated what is Rule 1 of baseball.”
Wittenmyer: Well, you’re about half-right. You can’t defend this commissioner, definitely not on this subject. I’m not here to try to tell you that Pete Rose should be exonerated or that he didn’t violate the rules. What I’m saying is “Rule 1” loses a lot of its power when the people making the rules bend them to their own benefit for money. The ultimate hypocrisy. Remember, in the 1980s baseball banned retired hall of famers Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays for being celebrity ambassadors for a casino. Now these guys are about to put a team in freaking Las Vegas.
Williams: Where the Oakland Athletics relocate has nothing to do with this. Also, commissioner Peter Ueberroth quickly corrected predecessor Bowie Kuhn’s mistake by reinstating Mantle and Mays in 1985. So that’s about as relevant as where the A’s play. I get your point from the historical perspective: Baseball had always taken a hard-line stance on gambling. But we live in different times, and that stance has loosened a bit. However, one thing that hasn’t changed – and should never, ever change – is the stiff penalty for betting on the game. That’s the bottom line.
Wittenmyer: We agree that the history here matters. But the real issue is the integrity of the people who are now interpreting and enforcing these rules. We are three commissioners removed from the one who originally banned Rose, and it feels more like this is becoming a matter of inertia to the commissioner’s office than anything about integrity or what’s right. Especially in the context of “loosened” guidelines for baseball’s relationship with the gambling industry. Even Manfred tried to downplay that relationship when he was asked about Rose, saying “I think people believe we make more money off gambling than we actually do.” That’s the tell. Manfred knows he doesn’t have integrity on his side anymore. As I said to him, the point is that number is not zero. You’re right, these are different times. We should make reasonable adjustments and decisions to reflect that difference.
Williams: Rose knew the rules, which are posted in every clubhouse. And he knew he was breaking them. He then spent years denying that he bet on baseball before finally admitting what the rest of the world already knew. I strongly believe he only came clean thinking it would help his chances of getting into the Hall of Fame – and not because he is truly sorry. Nothing about the changing times changes what he did. The Rose reinstatement argument is beyond old. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
Wittenmyer: Yeah, and keep your eye on the sparrow, right, Baretta? I’m not trying to defend Rose. He seems like the kind of degenerate I would love to party with. My problem is with the hypocrites in the highest office continue to put profits over integrity. For decades, Las Vegas was considered off limits for expansion or relocation. All of a sudden, Manfred doesn’t see it “as any different than any other city in America.” If baseball has changed its outlook that much, then Rose’s ban should be reconsidered after all these years. It’s already been a 34-year sentence. That seems more than fair now. If not, then the A’s owner and anyone else in the game who approves his move to Vegas should also be banned for life.
Williams: Cutting sponsorship deals with casinos and betting sites is just another money grab full stop. Doing it with places that let fans gamble is no different than doing it with Procter & Gamble.
Wittenmyer: Maybe. Manfred doesn’t exactly get away with being Mr. Clean on this. In fact, he’s missing another money grab. Imagine the benefit to baseball of finding a way to reinstate Rose. When Ueberroth did it with Mays and Mantle, the three of them landed on the cover of Sports Illustrated with huge smiles on their faces and the headline “Welcome Home!” They can even hire Rose as the ambassador of the sportsbook at Great American Ball Park, hold a media event there and have a whole merchandising campaign built around the Hit King’s return to baseball.
Williams: Don’t bet on that, pal.
Have an idea for a debate topic? Contact Gordon by email at gwittenmyer@enquirer.com or on Twitter @GDubMLB. Reach Jason at jwilliams@enquirer.com or @jwilliamscincy.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Is Rob Manfred a hypocrite on MLB gambling deals, Pete Rose?
