Ex-Cleveland Guardians catcher Bo Naylor testifies he didn’t know gamblers bet on individual pitches

Catcher Bo Naylor, a former teammate of Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz, said he had no idea that gamblers could place bets on individual pitches until the criminal case against the two pitchers emerged. During a deposition in the federal lawsuit that opened the eyes of the baseball community to the possibility of pitch‑by‑pitch betting, Naylor explained how the practice had slipped under the radar of many players, coaches and front‑office staff. His testimony shed light on a loophole in the sport’s betting infrastructure that has now prompted a wave of new regulations.The legal proceedings began in March 2024 after prosecutors uncovered evidence that Clase and Ortiz had colluded with a group of gamblers who profited from large wagers placed on specific pitch outcomes..

The case was the first of its kind to involve professional athletes in a scheme that relied on the detailed mechanics of a single delivery. While the allegations against the two pitchers have not yet been adjudicated in a court, the revelations have spurred the MLB to reassess its relationships with betting partners and to consider how to protect the integrity of the game.Naylor, who played with Clase and Ortiz for two seasons in 2019 and 2020, described his relationship with the pitchers as collegial and professional. “We worked together on the field,” he said..

I never thought of them as anything beyond teammates.” He went on to say that he had not been involved in any discussions about gambling, nor had he received any tips from gamblers or their representatives. “I was focused on catching, on my defensive work, on my batting practice. I didn’t have any reason to think that people were betting on my performance or on any specific pitch,” he told the court.The crux of the case lies in the fact that Clase and Ortiz allegedly provided subtle signals to the bettors about the type of pitch they would throw, allowing the gamblers to bet on a single throw..

The scheme exploited the fact that certain betting exchanges, especially in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe, allow wagers on extremely granular aspects of a game, including the speed and movement of a single ball. The legal team argued that the pitchers had shared information that could help gamblers win money on individual pitches.Naylor’s testimony also touched on the broader culture of gambling in professional baseball. He said that, for most of his career, he was aware that the sport was under constant scrutiny from gambling regulators, but he never imagined that the game could be broken down into such fine detail..

“We’re always told to stay away from the betting world,” he said. “The league’s policies make it very clear that any association with gamblers is prohibited. I followed those policies strictly.” However, he acknowledged that the evolving nature of sports betting, especially with the rise of fantasy leagues and advanced analytics, might have opened new avenues that were not fully understood.The case has also raised questions about the extent to which the MLB’s own data-sharing practices may have unintentionally facilitated the scheme..

Clase and Ortiz were known for their precise pitch‑calling routines, and the league had shared detailed pitch‑by‑pitch data with certain third‑party companies for broadcasting and analytics purposes. Although the data was anonymized, the plaintiffs argued that it was enough for a sophisticated gambling operation to create a predictive model that could identify a pitcher’s likely choice of pitch. The defense countered that the data was not actionable and that no single pitch could be used as a reliable betting target.Naylor’s comments about the data were consistent with the league’s general stance..

He said that while he was aware of the MLB’s data‑sharing policies, he never had access to the raw pitch‑by‑pitch information that was being sold to external firms. “The front office handles the data. I didn’t have any knowledge of how it was used,” he told the court..

This statement was supported by the fact that, during his tenure, he had not been given any instruction or incentive to share personal or team information with outsiders. His testimony highlighted how a player’s lack of knowledge can become a shield against legal liability, yet also a potential blind spot for the sport’s integrity.The court also asked Naylor about the role of team staff, specifically coaches and the front office, in monitoring gambling activity. He stated that the Guardians had a strict compliance program that monitored players’ interactions with gamblers, and that any suspicious behavior would be reported immediately..

He recalled a team policy that required players to disclose any conversation with a gambler or a person offering a betting tip. “We were taught to be very transparent,” Naylor said. “If someone asked me about a pitch, I would have to report it..

That’s what the policy says.” This policy, however, is still a work in progress, with many teams only recently updating their compliance programs to address the new risks.The impact of the case has already begun to ripple through the baseball community. Several other MLB teams have announced plans to review their data‑sharing agreements and to tighten restrictions on the sale of detailed pitching statistics. The MLB Players Association has also expressed concern that players may inadvertently be to betting networks..

In a statement, the union said that it is working with the league to ensure that “players understand the risks of sharing any personal or team information with outside parties.”Beyond the professional repercussions, Naylor’s testimony also carried a personal dimension. He said that he felt uneasy about the possibility that gamblers were watching his every move, that they might have known whether he was going to call a ball or a strike. “It’s a strange feeling to realize that people were trying to profit off my actions on the field,” he admitted..

He added that the revelation had prompted him to re‑examine his own attitudes toward gambling and to become more vigilant in protecting his integrity and that of the sport.The legal case also has implications for the future of sports betting. In the United States, where sports gambling has been legalized in most states, there is a growing concern that the fine‑grained data now available through streaming services and advanced analytics could open new avenues for match‑fixing. Naylor’s deposition underscored the need for clearer rules about how data is shared, who has access to it, and how it can be used..

Some experts argue that stricter oversight of betting exchanges that allow wagers on individual pitches is necessary, as well as enhanced monitoring of player and staff communications.As the case moves forward, the MLB is expected to adopt new protocols for data handling and for player education about gambling. The league has already announced plans to expand its compliance unit and to collaborate with betting companies to ensure that the integrity of the game is not compromised. The Guardians, meanwhile, are reportedly working closely with the league and with their.