Two US senators used a hearing on legal sports betting to push forward their own agendas on whether or not “biological males” should be allowed to play in women’s college sports events.
Senators John Kennedy and Josh Hawley hijacked today’s (17 December) US congressional hearing about the Supporting Affordability and Fairness with Every Bet Act (SAFE Bet Act) to push forward a different agenda.
It was an ironic situation – as senators and witnesses were discussing how to protect student-athletes from harassment from bettors, Kennedy and Hawley harassed NCAA chief Charlie Baker in the most public of forums.
During a question-and-answer period, Louisiana Republican Kennedy veered off track with questions around why the NCAA “allows biological males” to play in games with “biological females”. The issue has been in the news after multiple women’s volleyball teams forfeited games against San Jose State after it was revealed that there was a transgender player on the team. Boise State withdrew from a conference semifinal against San Jose State over the issue.
“Go buy a spine on Amazon”
The issue is fraught for college administrators, coaches and athletes. Baker said there is no federal mandate about whether or not a transgender player should be allowed to play. But he pointed to five court decisions that would allow it. Tuesday, he was met with this from Kennedy:
“Why don’t you stand up and take a leadership position?”
“Why don’t you stand up in front of god and country and say, ‘Federal law is wrong’ and ban biological males from playing in women’s games?”
“Maybe you should go to Amazon and buy a spine online.”
And if that diatribe from a sitting US senator wasn’t embarrassing enough, Hawley followed with even more vitriol. He delivered much of it in a raised voice. He also cut off Baker and talked over him. The lowlights of what Hawley said include:
“Did you say that federal law requires biological men (to be allowed) to play!? There is no federal law!”
“THIS IS YOUR FEDERAL POLICY THAT YOU WILL NOT DEFEND BECAUSE IT IS INDEFENSIBLE!”
“All of these women had to forfeit games and not play in the championship. Why are you allowing this?”
Congressional bullying
The display was disgusting. And not just for its content. Importantly, Kennedy and Hawley bullied Baker in what should be the most professional of professional settings. Chairman Dick Durbin let the displays go on for several minutes before eventually cutting off both Kennedy and Hawley. But Baker was remarkable. He did not lose his cool and, in some cases, he did not respond.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the transgender college athlete issue or even the NCAA’s position, Baker showed a calm professionalism that made the offending senators look even more ridiculous.
Gambling part of hearing was unbalanced
The stated intent of the hearing was to open discussion on the SAFE Bet Act. The proposed law would require states with legal sports betting to get federal approval to continue. It also lays out what would be some of the most stringent advertising guidelines in the world. In essence, it attempts to reverse the 2018 Supreme Court decision that made legal sports betting a states’ rights issue.
The hearing was unbalanced form the start. Five witnesses – three of whom would support the bill, one neutral and one opposed – testified. The key issues were banning college-player prop bets and curbing harassment of college athletes by bettors.
The American Gaming Association (AGA), which could have served as an industry representative, was not invited to participate.
“Today’s hearing notably lacked an industry witness,” AGA SVP of strategic communications Joe Maloney said in a statement. “This unfortunate exclusion leaves the committee and the overall proceeding bereft of testimony on how legal gaming protects consumers from the predatory illegal market and its leadership in promoting responsible gaming and safeguarding integrity. We remain committed to robust state regulatory frameworks that protect consumers, promote responsibility and preserve integrity of athletic competition.”
We support the bill, kind of
Even most of those who said they support the bill were clear in saying that they support only parts of it. Baker and Johnson Bademosi of the NFL Players Association qualified their support of the bill. Both said support was limited to the issues that would protect college athletes. But when pressed by the senate committee one way or the other, both offered support.
Bademosi, a former NFL player and Stanford graduate, gave what may have been the most compelling testimony. While it appears that Bademosi himself did not experience harassment in college – his career at that level was over before the rise of legal wagering – he did share a player’s insight.
“Players are targeted by gamblers who seek inside info or put on pressure to perform,” he said. “This has an overall negative effect on a player’s physical security and mental state of mind. These episodes have a clear negative effect on a player’s mental well-being… and can affect performance on the field.
“I believe sports betting can be operated in a way that won’t compromise integrity. Congress has a role to play in passing policies that reinforce integrity of game while protecting athletes.”
PG advocate favors GRIT Act
Baker, who has been on a campaign to eliminate college-player prop bets in legal betting states, said studies have shown that 10%-15% of college athletes have experienced harassment. But he was unable to qualify how many were harassed by bettors over game performance.
He did say that federal legislation should “work to shut down the illegal market”, ban college-player prop bets and “curb harassment”.
Keith Whyte of the National Council for Problem Gambling (NCPG) said his organisation is neutral on the SAFE Bet Act. He suggested that a prior piece of legislation, the GRIT Act, would be a more appropriate federal touch. That bill, which never got a hearing, has a focus on a national responsible gambling framework.
“We believe this practical and life-saving legislation is the single most important action Congress can take to address the negative impacts of expanded betting,” he said of the GRIT Act.
Rebuck: States have this covered
The remaining two witnesses – former New Jersey regulator Dave Rebuck and problem and responsible gambling advocate Harry Levant – were the only two witnesses with a clear position on the SAFE Bet Act.
Rebuck opposes it. As the regulator in the state that sued the federal government for states’ rights to allow legal online gambling, Rebuck built what is considered in the industry to be the gold standard of regulation.
He said that “states are best equipped and not the federal government” to regulate wagering. Rebuck was clear in saying that protecting athletes and the integrity of the game were top-line tenets in New Jersey. He has previously called out the federal government for trying to take control away from the 38 states that allow legal gambling.
“Federal oversight is clearly not needed,” he said today.
Levant: Operators offer “defectively designed” product
Levant, who had a hand in writing the SAFE Bet Act, is at the other end of the spectrum. A recovering gambling addict who is now an addiction counselor, Levant shared his story. A lawyer who fell prey to a gambling addiction, Levant lost his practice, broke his family and spent time in prison. He’s now committed to helping others and limiting access to gambling.
“Gambling addiction took my mind, soul, body and conscience,” he said. “It left me broken, battered and homeless. I was unrecognisable to myself. The only thing I had left was my name.”
He said that the gambling industry today is not the one that existed when the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was overturned and what the “AI-generated online gambling business” now delivers is “defectively designed” and brings “inherently dangerous gambling” to every device.
During the Q&A period after testimony, bill sponsor Richard Blumenthal said: “We are in the middle of a sports betting boom that has become a major crisis.”
No matter where lawmakers, proponents or opponents sit, today’s hearing served merely as a springboard. The meeting was the committee’s final one of the session and no action was taken.
