Joe Jackson 1919 Black Sox & Pete Rose.

[KCGHOST]

Guys, there is no use arguing with a Pete Rose apologist. They are beyond the pale of rational conversation or thought.

[yanks0714]

All 4 should be enshrined.

Perry is there and deservedly so.

People forget Bonds was a HOF players before the steroids. If ya don't like what he's done with steroids, forget it and just remember what he did before. He still qualifies.

Jackson, hey, it's going on 100 years. There is sufficent evidence he didn't willingly throw the WS. Give him the benefit of a doubt. I'd rather have a guilty man free than an innocent one penalized.

Rose deserves the HOF for what he accomplished on the field of play. Just don't allow him to otherwise be involved with baseball in any official capacity.

[538280]

Jackson, hey, it's going on 100 years. There is sufficent evidence he didn't willingly throw the WS. Give him the benefit of a doubt. I'd rather have a guilty man free than an innocent one penalized.


So you're going to forgive him just because he did it a long time ago? I don't understand how that takes away the seriousness of what he did. What is the sufficient evidence he didn't do anything to throw the WS? He almost certainly attended meetings and accepted money, to me that's enough right there to ban him. The main defense I've seen seems to be that he was too stupid to really know what was going on at the meetings, so he didn't follow through at the game. That may be true, but it doesn't give him a pass at all.

[Skin & Bones]

It is absolutely sad that Perry has more votes than Bonds.

[Hexed]

I have three questions.

1) UTforever22, rockiesfan4ever, Murderer's Row, and Dalkowski110, how do you justify voting for Gaylord Perry but not Barry Bonds?

2) EvanAparra, mwiggins, how do you justify voting for Jackson but not Pete Rose?

3) Can a Moderator please add a vote for me to Pete Rose?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I have three questions.
3) Can a Moderator please add a vote for me to Pete Rose?
Yes on three.

[Dalkowski110]

To answer your question, Perry threw the same pitch that Ed Walsh, Burleigh Grimes, (and Whitey Ford, and Don Drysdale) and a couple others threw. Like Walsh, he solely relied on the pitch. Although he cheated, he didn't chemically enhance himself. He's also in Cooperstown to begin with, like it or not. Steroids (and anyone who doesn't believe Bonds was on 'roids for the second half of his career is kidding themselves...the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is horse hockey in MLB...and incidentally, if we did use that particular Federal statute in MLB, then there would be NO ONE ever banned or even suspended) may not have been specified as illegal drugs on the MLB's illegal drug list, but they were Federally controlled substances and are used for the sole purpose of enhancing playing performance. I guess the short of it would be that Bonds and Perry both cheated, but Bonds cheated worse. Plus Perry is already enshrined in Cooperstown. Perry did things to the ball in order that it could do things that no regular baseball could. He did not physically alter himself in any way, shape, or form. Bonds did things to himself that allowed him to do things no ordinary human could do. He did physically (and chemically) alter himself in ways that are far beyond the realm of the spitball. After Perry retired, you only had a debate whether he should go into the Hall or not. You didn't have questions floating around about every MLB pitcher throwing a spitball. After Bonds was suspected of steroid use (and McGwire, and Sosa, plus a Federally proven Rafael Palmeiro), every slugger in MLB comes under suspicion of using steroids. That's a little bit worse, IMO...

[Skin & Bones]

Dal, I fail to see your reasoning on why a spitball is not as " bad " as taking steroids. The only legitimate arguement that can be used is the health issue, nothing more.

If it's statistics your looking for, it can easily be proven the impact doctored pitches had on the numbers league wide.

After Bonds was suspected of steroid use (and McGwire, and Sosa, plus a Federally proven Rafael Palmeiro), every slugger in MLB comes under suspicion of using steroids. That's a little bit worse, IMO

I fail to see how Bonds problems have anything to do with those three. Canseco wrote a book detailing his, Mcgwire, and Palmerio's steroid use. Sosa he did mention, though briefly as he did Clemens. Nonetheless, Bonds being involved with BALCO did NOT cause those other three sluggers to be suspected of steroid use. Canseco's book did.

And FTR, Perry admitted to cheating, Bonds hasn't been proven to have cheated yet. And don't tell me about Game of Shadows, because I've read the book and the evidence against Bonds, whom the authors clearly make the primary subject of the book, isn't as solid or conclusive as the authors try to lead you to believe.

[Dalkowski110]

"every slugger in MLB comes under suspicion of using steroids. That's a little bit worse, IMO" Was the point about how I said steroids were worse than a spitball. Like I said, every pitcher in the league didn't come under suspiscion of using a spitter when Perry retired, even his teammates. As for Bonds...two words...ballcap size. You really think that when somebody exercises, their head swells up to an enormous degree, too? The "swollen head" is the signature of a steroid user. And my main point about Perry is that he's already IN the Hall. Whether he deserves it or not (to me he's extremely borderline), and Bonds isn't. You don't have to repeat mistakes. And there were questions about something being amiss about McGwire and Sosa long before steroids came into the public view. First it was "supervitamins," then it was the ball was being juiced, then it was HGH, then it was some other theories (including steroids, and not just by Canseco), and Canseco's book was only the straw that broke the camel's back. Canseco was an idiot in more ways than one, but sometimes a fool can at least provide a plausible explanation of why so many people are all of a sudden smashing homeruns after their career peaks have already ended, and are doing it better than they ever had pre-steroids.

As for debating this any further, I find it to be extremely futile after looking at some of the threads we've had on Bonds that have lasted 8 or 9 pages just of arguing. I have better ways to use my time, and will do so. Consider this to be my last post on this topic.

[Skin & Bones]

Was the point about how I said steroids were worse than a spitball. Like I said, every pitcher in the league didn't come under suspiscion of using a spitter when Perry retired, even his teammates.

So what, how in any way shape or form does this downplay the use of a spitball ?



You really think that when somebody exercises, their head swells up to an enormous degree, too? The "swollen head" is the signature of a steroid user.

A growing skull is usually signs of HGH use, and it doesn't happen to everyone.

And my main point about Perry is that he's already IN the Hall. Whether he deserves it or not (to me he's extremely borderline), and Bonds isn't. You don't have to repeat mistakes. And there were questions about something being amiss about McGwire and Sosa long before steroids came into the public view. First it was "supervitamins," then it was the ball was being juiced, then it was HGH, then it was some other theories (including steroids, and not just by Canseco), and Canseco's book was only the straw that broke the camel's back.

There was some whispers about Mcgwire after they found Andro in his locker, that's about it. Nobody doubted his numbers, or his HOF credentials until Canseco's book was written. Sosa was once asked a few years back by Rick Oreily to take a piss test, other than that, nothing about those two guy's using steroids was ever brought up till a few years later.

but sometimes a fool can at least provide a plausible explanation of why so many people are all of a sudden smashing homeruns after their career peaks have already ended, and are doing it better than they ever had pre-steroids.

Other then Barry Bonds, how many have smashed homeruns after their " peaks ended " ?

No player since Honus Wagner has aged as well as Bonds.

As for debating this any further, I find it to be extremely futile after looking at some of the threads we've had on Bonds that have lasted 8 or 9 pages just of arguing. I have better ways to use my time, and will do so. Consider this to be my last post on this topic.

Later.

[Brad Harris]

Having an "all four" and a "none of the above" option sort of blurs the picture. One individual voted for each of the names separately as well as "all four" while another voted for three of the four names as well as "all four". Weird.

Anyhow...after sorting through who voted for whom, I have accurate totals as of the current vote.

Board shows:
64% Bonds
64% Perry
39% Rose
24% All four
21% Jackson
0% None

After appropriate adjustments to do away with the unnecessary "all four" option, here are the revised figures:
82% Bonds
82% Perry
58% Rose
42% Jackson
0% None

So it's not quite as "hopeless" as Bonds and Perry supporters might think at first glance.

[2Chance]

Perry threw doctored baseballs over the entire course of his career (or at least long enough to have every suspect he did.)

Bonds used PEDs over a period of years to improve his game.

Rose and Jackson could have done what they are accused of doing only one time and it would be enough to keep them out forever.

But it looks like I'm voting with the majority, for the most part.

A spitter is okay with me, and what Bonds did was not illegal by baseball standards when he was doing it (as far as we know.) I believe Jackson was innocent....or maybe just not convinced he's guilty. (That's been covered in another thread or maybe 30, so let's not do it again.)

Rose is the only one who doesn't belong. Personally, I think he does based on his playing career, but the rules specifically keep anybody who is under banishment from being elected. If the rules said you have to have a certain hair color or bow to Bud Selig upon entry, them's the rules and you gotta follow 'em. If they change the rule, he should go in, as distasteful as that sounds. (So it's a good idea to keep the rule. And I have never heard that it was up for discussion.)

[rugbyfreak]

Since it's among the general census that Rose, Bonds, and Jackson don't belong in the Hall of Fame because of steroids and gambling which 'compromised' the integrity of the game, one would ponder if Gaylord Perry then belongs. After all, he cheated, admitted to it, and breezed his way into the Hall of Fame with nobody doubting his integrity. Rose on the other hand, baseball's all time hit leader, is still banned, as well as Jackson, one of the greatest hitters ever, and Bonds, baseball's single season homerun king, may indeed be banned. So whats everyones thoughts, please vote on my poll, and share your thoughts on this subject.

Thanks.

Hey, Iron Horse: Looks like you're backin’ me up in the somewhat lonely "show me the proof" camp. Thanks, man! I took a royal beating for it last year for having Sammy's back on this point on his HOF issue. I even imparted a bit of the "patriot guilt-trip", if you will, upon my fellow threaders, citing the presumption of innocence credo as the very bedrock of our society. I called everyone out in this thread who were basically saying, "Yeah, it's true we have nothing concrete on Sammy, but I just KNOW he’s guilty, know what I mean?"

I will admit it: I bellowed self-righteously from my soapbox, implying--without actually saying it--that if you take this sort of lynch-mob approach to such a serious charge, and in doing so, you dramatically change a man’s life, you are, well, something of a fascist. (Oh dear!) But all in good fun, of course. Now here are my thoughts:

Bonds: With Barry, it's far easier to apply the “show me the proof” argument than with Sammy. With Sosa, there was a dramatic, almost freakish, upswing in his game beginning in '98 and lasting about 5-6 years, and in considering him for the Hall, you must deal with these years somehow, because without them, he is definitely not HOF material. With Barry, we have the option of not even dealing with the steroids, since we can say that, pre-'99 (when we presume he began using the juice), he was already a HOFer. (This may not be a unanimous assertion, but I find it far in excess of a simple majority, at least on BBF.) If you believe this, then all that’s left is to ask if cheating later on in his career—and therefore calling into question his character—still deletes his HOF eligibility. My vote: He’s in, even assuming unassailable evidence down the road (highly doubtful) that he used sometime after ’99.

Rose: Similar situation as Bonds. As lougehrig pointed out, Rose’s documented cheating took place after his playing career, during his managerial stint, and as such, could be considered separately, as I am inclined to do. I have to say, even today, no player causes me to swing back and forth like Rose. For years, I said all he had to do was come clean, submit a reasonably sincere, public apology, and Americans—and especially baseball fans—being the forgiving sorts they are, would move on and give Rose his undeniable HOF due. (I always said this is what Bill Clinton should have done.) But when Rose finally did submit his mea culpa, it was so late (after years of continued denial even after the Dowd report showed his betting sheets, etc.), so insincere and so shamelessly timed for a January release that took headlines away from the honest players who had just been voted in, that I’m still not sure it wasn’t too little, too late.

Here’s the dirty little secret: While I don't invest much sympathy in Rose’s persistent "victim" complex regarding his case, I must add it's not wholly unfounded, at least in one regard. Everyone understands now that he is blocked from the HOF ballot because of the baseball statute that (I paraphrase) "Any player on the baseball ineligibility list will also be ineligible for consideration in any HOF election."

This has been stated for so long that everybody assumes a direct connection between MLB and the HOF was always so. Not at all. MLB does not, in any way, run the HOF, it operates independently (though it has developed, of course, countless working agreements to procure memorabilia, licensing, player access...you name it). But in the end, any final decisions regarding the HOF rests with that entity. But the rule requiring a clean sheet with MLB was created SPECIFICALLY to block Rose, once Giamatti realized the possibility existed that Rose could be elected unilaterally in spite of pending problems with MLB. I believe (here is where I'm supposing) the HOF agreed in good faith to honor MLB's status on any player and only ballotize players in good standing. Here's where Rose's contention that he is the victim of "special treatment" is quite accurate. It's up to the fan to decide whether that special treatment is justified.

One more interesting similarity with Bonds: what I call the “hump” complex. In a perfect world, players’ careers should be judged, by and large, by the numbers, and to a smaller degree, certain subjective intangibles (e.g. impact upon the game, leadership qualities, etc.) Absent of out-and-out rule-breaking, a voter’s “feel” for a player’s character (“I just don’t like the guy”), or his personal moral evaluations of that player (“He drank too much…cheated on his wife”) should not, in my opinion, factor in. In fact, I believe it irresponsible for him to do so. Thankfully, it has not come into play all that often, otherwise Cobb would never have gotten in, nor would Boggs, since it was well known he had a paramour outside of his marriage for years.

But a smart player should realize that it’s not a perfect world out there, and if you have HOF aspirations, a little PR never hurts. This involves, at least a minimum effort not to go through life a total hump. As I’ve said, humps do not cloud my judgement in the least, but as a longtime sportswriter who is not a HOF voter but who knows a couple, I can tell you that the world is filled with small-minded reporters who carry with them that time, eons ago, that so-and-so blew them off on a story, or was rude to them occasionally, and by golly, that hump will never get MY HOF vote. Sad, but true, but if you conduct your career at least appearing to be a nice guy, you can overcome many things. Stupidly, neither Bonds nor Rose has ever shown the least bit interest in being a human being who cares about anybody but themselves. My vote: Rose is in, simply because the all-time hits leader has to be, and his apology, pathetic though it was, is all we’re going to get from him.

Perry: I'm sorry, but, like it or not, cheating tactics on the mound have assumed a secure place in baseball culture as a wink-wink-you-naughty-boy offense, at most. For God's sake, even when they finally decided to outlaw the spitter (in 1920, as more or less a rider in the greater clean-up-the-game initiative then in motion), what did they do? They grandfathered the guys who were the principal utilizers of the pitch "until they should retire"!!! Since these guys were basically the only ones using the pitch with any regularity (you know how tough it is to throw?), MLB essentially gave the pitch 14 more years of full, legal use! (When Grimes, I believe, threw the last one.)

I could go on about Perry--I find him fascinating, gonna start a thread on him--but since I never participate in arguments seeking to "remove" a HOFer or degrade his inudction, I'm done here. But as Perry himself gleefully said in his book, his actual throwing of the pitch, versus allowing batters to believe he might, is miniscule. One of the master head-games in MLB history.

Jackson: This decision essentially comes down to this very simple question: Do I believe that knowing about a fix is a crime equal to participating in it? It has to, because I can't entertain any argument that Jackson, who batted .375, set a WS record with 12 hits, and played errorless ball, actually played to lose. Can you? In addition, I believe that this rather simple, but loyal, man, was hoodwinked by the sharpies in the cabal, led by Gandill, into saying he was in, "because all the boys are in," then, even though he personally could not bring himself to throw his game, could also not bring himself to turn in his boys. How many of us would have? Of course, he didn't stand a chance then, nor will he ever, since baseball's Prime Directive is stated in such a way (by baseball's all-time small-minded hardhead himself, Judge Landis) that knowing about a fix, or even associating with those who do, is tantamount to participating in one yourself. If you subscribe to this line of thinking, then you cannot let Jackson in. I myself do not, and I point to his WS performance as Exhibit A in my case that in no way did he participate in it.

Sorry for the length of this tome, but this thread pushed a rugbyfreak hot-button, opening up faucets that could not be shut!

Thanks for listening!

freak

[2Chance]

originally posted by 2Chance
Rose is the only one who doesn't belong. Personally, I think he does based on his playing career, but the rules specifically keep anybody who is under banishment from being elected. If the rules said you have to have a certain hair color or bow to Bud Selig upon entry, them's the rules and you gotta follow 'em. If they change the rule, he should go in, as distasteful as that sounds.
originally posted by rugbyfreak
While I don't invest much sympathy in Rose’s persistent "victim" complex regarding his case, I must add it's not wholly unfounded, at least in one regard. Everyone understands now that he is blocked from the HOF ballot because of the baseball statute that (I paraphrase) "Any player on the baseball ineligibility list will also be ineligible for consideration in any HOF election."

This has been stated for so long that everybody assumes a direct connection between MLB and the HOF was always so. Not at all. MLB does not, in any way, run the HOF, it operates independently (though it has developed, of course, countless working agreements to procure memorabilia, licensing, player access...you name it). But in the end, any final decisions regarding the HOF rests with that entity. But the rule requiring a clean sheet with MLB was created SPECIFICALLY to block Rose, once Giamatti realized the possibility existed that Rose could be elected unilaterally in spite of pending problems with MLB. I believe (here is where I'm supposing) the HOF agreed in good faith to honor MLB's status on any player and only ballotize players in good standing. Here's where Rose's contention that he is the victim of "special treatment" is quite accurate. It's up to the fan to decide whether that special treatment is justified.
freak,
Thanks for clarifying what I called "the rules" for short. :clapping

I just KNOW there are people out there who don't understand this, or at least this is new information to them. Otherwise we wouldn't get so many Pete threads. I really believe that if this rule were removed, he should be immediately enshrined. This is the only barrier.

He won't be reinstated, because he didn't show the Commissioner what he believed was proper contrition. As Mike Schmidt says in his book (paraphrasing), if it were me I'd cry and grovel on my knees until he let me back in. Apparently Pete's tack was something more like, "okay, it's been a few years now, and I've had a helluva time getting an appointment to see you. I admit what I did. I broke the rules, bet on baseball, even bet on my team. But I bet on them to win! Doesn't that count for sumthin'?

Are you happy now? .... So, when do I get my Hall of Fame ticket punched? I was thinking of how to begin my acceptance speech...."

(apologies for quoting myself above)

[Colorado Express]

I am not a fan of any of these guys with the exception of Jackson. Having said that, all 4 should be in.

I have read enough to have me believe that Joe Jackson had no idea in what he was doing and should be inducted ASAP.

Rose's ban should stand. Although he was one of the best players in his era, he knew that wagering on baseball was against the rules and he broke them. I'm also not a fan of longevity getting you into the HOF. Rose had some remarkable numbers, but many were put up long after his prime.

No matter what Bonds has allegedly done, he is one of the best players of modern times. Steroids or not, Bonds' numbers would be impressive.

I'm not a fan, but his numbers are solid. Again, I'm not a fan of those that make the hall due to longevity, but he's in.

[LostWorld]

Perry: Already in, can't throw him out now.

Bonds: Never been proven to have used steroids.

Rose: There is no evidence he did anything as manager or player that was detrimental to the Reds' long term or short term interests.

Jackson is the only one who doesn't belong.

[rugbyfreak]

Some good posts so far, and I hope we get some more, since this thread presents multiple opportunities for discussion. Some thoughts:

2chance: Thanks for backing me up on that MLB/HOF issue. Can't tell you how many fans have told me I'm full of it on this point since--no surprise at all--MLB makes no effort to inform fans that they traditionally have had no control over the doings in Cooperstown since, thanks to the Rose issue, it is not in their interests to do so. They would rather have us assume that the HOF is obliged to follow orders from MLB as to who is eligible instead of what we should all really be doing: Asking why it is that the HOF has waived its autonomy in the Rose matter. There may be some ugly reason--MLB threatening to withhold something the HOF needs, etc., etc.

And you're so right about Pete: His sense of entitlement is so downright repulsive that you almost want to deny him, even of something that would seem to be automatic. But knowing this agreement between MLB and the HOF does answer one question that has puzzled us for years: Why on earth would someone in Pete's position willingly sign that MLB banishment document? Simple: At the time, someone told him--correctly--that MLB really has no say over who gets on the HOF ballot, and thus gets elected. Pete figured, fine, I'll sign and avoid admitting guilt, and take my chances with the HOF. Little did he know the collusion between the two that would take place--or may have already taken place.

And one more thing about Pete: Even if you support him for the Hall, never, ever get sucked in by his absolutely lame defense that, yes, I did bet on baseball, and the Reds. But I only bet on the Reds to win, so it's all right. WRONG! Despite the fact that the Dowd Report has turned up hundreds of tickets indicating Rose's bets on the Reds to win, but not one to lose, is in no way a mitigating factor. Forget for a minute that the baseball statute against gambling is absolute (although that alone is end of story). I for one have always believed wholeheartedly that Pete never did bet against the Reds. His competitive nature and lifetime connection with the Reds is simply too strong.

But know this: Every bookmaker in the country knew of Pete's habit, and through their connections tracked every bet he made, especially on the Reds, about whom it was assumed he had unique, inside information. On days when he made no bet at all on the Reds, it was naturally assumed he did not feel confident in his team's chances, so he took a pass. Many took that as a cue to bet against them that day. So even when doing nothing, he was exerting a huge illegal influence on the Reds' line nationwide, so he might as well have been placing a bet. A classic case of the ******* assuming that the rest of us are also dumbasses.

And, Colorado Express: Don't be so quick to underrate longevity. It has an almost direct correlation with greatness. Any player who manages to last more than, say, 15 years is almost always an all-time great, or the game would simply have flushed him out long before.

Look for my upcoming thread on Perry, and jump in. That's it for now.

Thanks for listening!

freak

[jalbright]

2chance: Thanks for backing me up on that MLB/HOF issue. Can't tell you how many fans have told me I'm full of it on this point since--no surprise at all--MLB makes no effort to inform fans that they traditionally have had no control over the doings in Cooperstown since, thanks to the Rose issue, it is not in their interests to do so. They would rather have us assume that the HOF is obliged to follow orders from MLB as to who is eligible instead of what we should all really be doing: Asking why it is that the HOF has waived its autonomy in the Rose matter. There may be some ugly reason--MLB threatening to withhold something the HOF needs, etc., etc.

And you're so right about Pete: His sense of entitlement is so downright repulsive that you almost want to deny him, even of something that would seem to be automatic. But knowing this agreement between MLB and the HOF does answer one question that has puzzled us for years: Why on earth would someone in Pete's position willingly sign that MLB banishment document? Simple: At the time, someone told him--correctly--that MLB really has no say over who gets on the HOF ballot, and thus gets elected. Pete figured, fine, I'll sign and avoid admitting guilt, and take my chances with the HOF. Little did he know the collusion between the two that would take place--or may have already taken place.

And one more thing about Pete: Even if you support him for the Hall, never, ever get sucked in by his absolutely lame defense that, yes, I did bet on baseball, and the Reds. But I only bet on the Reds to win, so it's all right. WRONG! Despite the fact that the Dowd Report has turned up hundreds of tickets indicating Rose's bets on the Reds to win, but not one to lose, is in no way a mitigating factor. Forget for a minute that the baseball statute against gambling is absolute (although that alone is end of story). I for one have always believed wholeheartedly that Pete never did bet against the Reds. His competitive nature and lifetime connection with the Reds is simply too strong.

But know this: Every bookmaker in the country knew of Pete's habit, and through their connections tracked every bet he made, especially on the Reds, about whom it was assumed he had unique, inside information. On days when he made no bet at all on the Reds, it was naturally assumed he did not feel confident in his team's chances, so he took a pass. Many took that as a cue to bet against them that day. So even when doing nothing, he was exerting a huge illegal influence on the Reds' line nationwide, so he might as well have been placing a bet. A classic case of the ******* assuming that the rest of us are also dumbasses.

I don't know of anything explicit between Cooperstown and MLB, but as Bill James pointed out in Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?, Cooperstown has powerful motivations to please MLB. It also has many MLB types serving in key positions in its own power structure. Bud Selig is on the Board of Trustees for instance (or at least was a couple of years back). So Cooperstown isn't likely to pick any fights with MLB.

As for Pete's betting, my understanding was it was a) always on the Reds to win, b) always in the same amount, and c) didn't miss a Reds' game. If that understanding of the betting pattern is correct, rugbyfreak's analysis of the impact of the betting in betting circles has no support, as it supposes at least a variance in how much was bet on the Reds. Certainly, bookies would have watched for the pattern rugbyfreak describes for the reasons he suggests. However, if the bets were as constant as I understand, they wouldn't have given Rose's bets regard as inside information.

Jim Albright

[2Chance]

Why on earth would someone in Pete's position willingly sign that MLB banishment document? Simple: At the time, someone told him--correctly--that MLB really has no say over who gets on the HOF ballot, and thus gets elected. Pete figured, fine, I'll sign and avoid admitting guilt, and take my chances with the HOF. Little did he know the collusion between the two that would take place--or may have already taken place.

And one more thing about Pete: Even if you support him for the Hall, never, ever get sucked in by his absolutely lame defense that, yes, I did bet on baseball, and the Reds. But I only bet on the Reds to win, so it's all right. WRONG! Despite the fact that the Dowd Report has turned up hundreds of tickets indicating Rose's bets on the Reds to win, but not one to lose, is in no way a mitigating factor. Forget for a minute that the baseball statute against gambling is absolute (although that alone is end of story). I for one have always believed wholeheartedly that Pete never did bet against the Reds. His competitive nature and lifetime connection with the Reds is simply too strong.
Pete's reasoning also included that he could apply for reinstatement after one year. He thought he could swing that easily enough. After all, Mays, Mantle, and Durocher were banished once and reinstated, right? And he was the beloved Hit King!

Also, the fact that baseball's statute against gambling -- #21 in every clubhouse -- is, and should be, enough to keep somebody banned. I even think the rule that keeps banned players from the Hall is a good thing, even though this was a case of closing the barn door after the animals got out.

But it seems unfair that Rose is the only player who has to live by this rule at this time. It makes about as much sense as enshrining Palmeiro and then making a rule against voting for steroid users.

[Deebo]

I only voted for Bonds and Jackson. Bonds was a Hof pre 1999 with three mvp's and 8 goldgloves. Jackson was innocent imo. and his career numbers are also hof worthy, and he never got the chance to take advantage of the live ball era.

[yanks0714]

So you're going to forgive him just because he did it a long time ago? I don't understand how that takes away the seriousness of what he did. What is the sufficient evidence he didn't do anything to throw the WS? He almost certainly attended meetings and accepted money, to me that's enough right there to ban him. The main defense I've seen seems to be that he was too stupid to really know what was going on at the meetings, so he didn't follow through at the game. That may be true, but it doesn't give him a pass at all.

At the risk of starting another Jackson thread, my belief that Jackson was too dumb to realize what he was getting into.

I think the money was foisted on him.

I believe he played to win.

From what I've read, Jackson never attened any of the meetings. The gamblers wanted Joe in on it and Gandil and Williams told them he was even though Jackson never told them he was.

It's my belief that Jackson and Weaver should have been suspended for a year as opposed to being banned. Their biggest crime was in not informing authorities about what they knew of the fix. The other 6 can and should be banned.

[LUGZ]

Bonds belongs the rest dont

[Rookie1914]

We set OJ free, let all 4 of them in :D

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Sorry to dig up an old post, but it IS in the "Introduction" thread.

I wrote an essay on Joe Jackson last year for my American History class. My thesis was that Joe Jackson, while knowing about the fix, was a victim of the circumstances and should not be banned from the HOF anymore.

Because of the Reserve Clause, combined with the shrewdness of Comiskey, Jackson and Co. were paid miserable salaries. They were made to wash their own uniforms, and they were given less meal money than all other teams.

The players had no course of action against Comiskey, who controlled them (as far as their baseball careers went) and was not required to pay them a decent wage. Jackson and Weaver were payed much less than even an average player at the time.

Because of this, I say that Jackson (and Weaver) should be admitted to the Hall. They were victims of circumstance. Jackson evidently regretted doing what he did, but he needed some way of making any sort of money. In addition to taking the money, he played well. He may not have played to his best ability, that is impossible to decide. But he certainly played well.

Pete Rose had no such justification for what he did. He made a good salary, and was simply greedy.

This is why Jackson (and Weaver) deserve to be in the Hall, and Rose does not.

[vasprtsfn]

Pete Rose. The discretions of both players aside for a minute, on stats alone, Rose is a HOFer, Joe Jackson is not.

[bhss89]

Definitely Shoeless Joe - and if McGwire gets in, this ballot or in the future, and Joe doesn't, then I think something is very wrong at the HoF.

Shoeless Joe allegedly threw the Series; McGwire allegedly stuck a needle in his body. Based solely on the "alleged-ness" (is that a word?) of both instances, then they should either both be "in" or both be banned. IMHO, of course. :rolleyes:

I think that what we witness McGwire's body do over time may tell the tale. I don't know if the long-term effects of andro are similar to those for 'roids, but then again, maybe he used them both.

I heard recently that Sosa is back down to around 175 pounds! Something's goin' on with these guys!

[KCGHOST]

I sometimes think that if I started a poll that asked who should have been banned from the Garden of Evil for eating the Forbidden Fruit (e.g. 1) Just Adam, 2) Just Eve, 3) Both of Them, 4) Neither of Them)) the Rose Apologists would concoct some reason to chose 4 and then would use that as a reason to justify Pete's actions.

If you decide to break the rules be man enough to accept the consequences of your actions.

As for Jackson we need to let the main action speak for itself. If he took money to throw games all else is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether he didn't get the money or actually performed at his best.

[Skin & Bones]

Here's a recent picture of Sosa. Looks nothing like 175 pounds.
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-061111sosagallery,1,5851496.photogallery?coll=cs-cubs-headlines&index=6

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rose did not throw games. Jackson participated in a conspiracy that did just that.

This, to me, is a HUGE distinction, morally. What Rose did COULD POSSIBLY HAVE LED to what Jackson ACTUALLY DID.

My solution to the issue here is this:

(A) The HOF should amend its rule about suspended players to where the only ineligible parties are those who either throw games or conspire to do so (take bribes, make introductions, set up meetings).

(B) The HOF should appoint a panel to determine if the weight of the evidence to date indicates that Rose threw games, or conspired to do so. If there is no such finding, the HOF should announce this, and announce Rose as eligible for the HOF.

(C) Rose should then be submitted to the BBWAA for approval.

This way, Rose can go to old-timers games, be a HOFer, but not be at risk to be hired as a manager by some hopelessly dumb owner.

[brett]

Neither. Not Jackson because it would be wrong for us to think we were more suited to judge him than those who lived in his time period.

Not Rose because he would be in if he had done what it takes to make amends. He is the only person keeping himself banned.

But if I had to take one, it would be Jackson because he's dead, and part of history, and not necessarily to be glorified, but rather to be contemplated.

Jackson or Rose?

[Old Sweater]

Jackson should go in. Rose when he dies.

There you go. Hope that I'm gone by then to.

[brett]

Wrong, sorry. Jackson produced more net above the average player of his period in 10 years than Rose in 20+. Rose's last 5 years were actually among the most negative value seasons in history.

Pete Rose. The discretions of both players aside for a minute, on stats alone, Rose is a HOFer, Joe Jackson is not.

[Old Sweater]

Rose's last 5 years were actually among the most negative value seasons in history.


Lucky he had a manager that let him play long enough to break Cobbs hit record.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I think that that single fact takes so much away from him breaking the record.

[Fuzzy Bear]

if I had to take one, it would be Jackson because he's dead, and part of history, and not necessarily to be glorified, but rather to be contemplated.

One could say the same thing about erecting a memorial in Washington, DC to Benedict Arnold, and putting his face on a postage stamp.

The role Benedict Arnold played in the early years of the Revolutionary War cannot be understated. He and Washington, together, were the military team that kept the Continental armies going. If there had been no Benedict Arnold, no brave, smart, tough, Benedict Arnold in the early years of the fight, there would not have been a United States of America in 1783.

Arnold is not honored, of course, because despite all of this, he became a traitor. His treasonous activities were not particularly effective; the damage he did as a traitor is far outweighed by the good he did while fighting for the new United States. That's not the point; Arnold became a traitor, and because he was who he was BEFORE he became a traitor made his treason more grievous.

History does not pretend Benedict Arnold never existed. We choose to REMEMBER Arnold, to tell the stories of his brave deeds and his good deeds for America, but not to HONOR him, because of his treason. The phrase "Benedict Arnold" and "treason" are synonymous; being a Benedict Arnold in America is no better than being a Quisling in Norway.

The Black Sox scandal has much in common with this. Chick Gandil was the heavy who brokered the fix between the players and gamblers. There were seven other players that were part of the conspiracy, but the one who gives a face to the scandal is "Say it ain't so, Joe!" Jackson. Why? Because his treason was the treason of a leader. Jackson was a leader of his team; a leader in the sense that he was the big star; that the team depended on him to produce; that he was the focus of events, positive and negative.

We ought to remember Jackson. He was a great player, and a significant player. But we ought not to HONOR him. He was Benedict Arnold to baseball. Pete Rose wasn't; his sins were not that grievous. Jackson's were. He should be remembered, and he will be, but he should never, not even years after his death, be honored. In truth, Benedict Arnold deserves it more.

[Appling]

One could say the same thing about erecting a memorial in Washington, DC to Benedict Arnold, and putting his face on a postage stamp.

The role Benedict Arnold played in the early years of the Revolutionary War cannot be understated. He and Washington, together, were the military team that kept the Continental armies going.

Very well said. My head wants to agree with you -- but my heart still won't let it happen. In my mind, Joe Jackson was a victim, not a traitor to baseball. (A victim of poor education, of the Reserve Clause, of Charles Comiskey, of Chick Gandil, and a victim of the vengeful and ambitious Judge Mountain Landis.)

[JamesWest]

Neither of them. Someday I may change my mind about Rose, but I doubt if I ever will about Jackson.

[soxfan34]

say why he should be in

[Ace Venom]

For every reason Shoeless Joe should be in Cooperstown, there's one glaring reason why he should never be in Cooperstown. Throwing the World Series nearly destroyed MLB. If the bans are overturned and Joe goes in, there's no reason Cicotte shouldn't be in either. Even if Joe was innocent, you couldn't overturn the ban without overturning the other bans. Let's not forget that the other players were acquitted too.

[jalbright]

Another merge.

[CTaka]

I'm not as learned on the subject as others, such as Bill Burgess, are. But from what I've seen, I think Jackson should be in the Hall. Certainly if this were to have occurred or be judged by contemporary processes, then he certainly should be in the Hall. He wasn't found guilty in a court of law - I can't see today's players union allowing the Commissioner to ban a player that was not found guilty. I can't imagine a scenario in today's game that would let Jackson be questioned or give testimony without a lawyer. And I think any competent lawyer would counsel him to not incriminate himself and play up the point about trying to return the money and report the situation to the team President. I'd guess the lawyer would strongly emphasize that Jackson led both teams in hitting and slugging, struck out only twice in 32 at bats, and didn't commit an error in the field while recording 16 putouts and 1 assist, and argue that such effort is inconsistent with the efforts of someone trying to lose the series. With his own lawyer, and clearly with today's players union (and possibly in 1920 without one), Jackson could have been reinstated and thus eligible for the Hall.

[Brad Harris]

Jackson's Hall credentials are one thing that's legitimately debatable. His guilt as a co-conspirator to throw the 1919 World Series is not.

[Paul Wendt]

I'm not as learned on the subject as others, such as Bill Burgess, are. But from what I've seen, I think Jackson should be in the Hall. Certainly if this were to have occurred or be judged by contemporary processes, then he certainly should be in the Hall.
What a crock!

Have you counted how many people wait for conviction in a court of law regarding the homerun hitters and strikeout pitchers who may have used . . . Performance Enhancing Drugs?
(other than caffeine and your favorite cure for a hangover)

Surely you have heard a few about helping OJ look for the real killers?

[Brad Harris]

Surely you have heard a few about helping OJ look for the real killers?
:laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

[Bill Burgess]

What a crock!

Have you counted how many people wait for conviction in a court of law regarding the homerun hitters and strikeout pitchers who may have used . . . Performance Enhancing Drugs?
(other than caffeine and your favorite cure for a hangover)

Surely you have heard a few about helping OJ look for the real killers?
I once read in the National Enquirer that OJ actually was looking for the real killers.

He had been tipped off that the real killer was a homicidal, maniacal golf caddy. Or so he was told.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm not as learned on the subject as others, such as Bill Burgess, are. But from what I've seen, I think Jackson should be in the Hall. Certainly if this were to have occurred or be judged by contemporary processes, then he certainly should be in the Hall. He wasn't found guilty in a court of law - I can't see today's players union allowing the Commissioner to ban a player that was not found guilty. I can't imagine a scenario in today's game that would let Jackson be questioned or give testimony without a lawyer. And I think any competent lawyer would counsel him to not incriminate himself and play up the point about trying to return the money and report the situation to the team President. I'd guess the lawyer would strongly emphasize that Jackson led both teams in hitting and slugging, struck out only twice in 32 at bats, and didn't commit an error in the field while recording 16 putouts and 1 assist, and argue that such effort is inconsistent with the efforts of someone trying to lose the series. With his own lawyer, and clearly with today's players union (and possibly in 1920 without one), Jackson could have been reinstated and thus eligible for the Hall.

The standard to prove guilt in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's a pretty hard standard to meet. What's more, a trial isn't something to where charges can be brought with flimsy evidence, while the prosecutor just throws mud at the defendant and everyone watches to see what sticks. BEFORE formal charges are filed, the prosecutor (at least in Florida) has to sign an affidavit stating that he/she believes that the state has the necessary evidence to meet the reasonable doubt standard at trial. (Could that, pray tell, be the reason so many cases result in plea agreements?)

The "reasonable doubt" standard is not, however, the standard by which most things in life are decided. It's not the standard for civil trials (just ask O. J.), probation/parole violations, and it's not the standard by which baseball chooses to banish players. THAT standard is the "preponderance of evidence" standard; the overall weight of the evidence supports a finding of guilt.

Is there any doubt that MLB met THAT standard with Jackson, in terms of his engaging in conduct detrimental to the integrity of baseball? I think that the "preponderance of evidence" standard is UNQUESTIONABLY met in terms of the issue as to whether or not Jackson had guilty knowledge of the fix before the fact, and did nothing about it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Neither. Not Jackson because it would be wrong for us to think we were more suited to judge him than those who lived in his time period.

Not Rose because he would be in if he had done what it takes to make amends. He is the only person keeping himself banned.

But if I had to take one, it would be Jackson because he's dead, and part of history, and not necessarily to be glorified, but rather to be contemplated.

The statement about Rose is simply nonsense.

For years, people vilified Rose, stating that what he needed to do was "come clean". So after all those years, Rose "came clean" and admitted that he bet on baseball.

What was the response? It was hardly positive; it was a renewal of the chorus of "Rose is a scumbag!", only now, it was coupled with people stating "See? We were right about Rose all along!"

Where, exactly, is it written that Pete Rose will be reinstated and be HOF eliglible if he "comes clean"? Or if he "shows contrition"? Because if that was the deal, then Rose did his part, but those who would "reward" the "contrition" seem to have failed to live up to their part of the bargain.

The people who demand Rose "come clean" have no intention of providing a course to follow by which Rose will be "restored". They just want the gory details of his conduct, plus, they want the benefit of seeing Rose squirm, publicly. These folks trump Rose in insincerity, and that's hard to do.

I can't blame Rose for taking the tack he's taken. He's not been promised reinstatement under any circumstances; indeed, most of what he's been offered is a "bait and switch". I don't really like Rose; I never have. He's an arrogant scumbag, but he won't be the first of that type in the HOF if he makes it there. MLB hasn't dealt honestly with Rose on the suspension and reinstatement issue for 5 minutes at a time over the last 20 years. Rose isn't wrong to presume that the dishonesty by which he's been dealt with won't continue.

[yanks0714]

For every reason Shoeless Joe should be in Cooperstown, there's one glaring reason why he should never be in Cooperstown. Throwing the World Series nearly destroyed MLB. If the bans are overturned and Joe goes in, there's no reason Cicotte shouldn't be in either. Even if Joe was innocent, you couldn't overturn the ban without overturning the other bans. Let's not forget that the other players were acquitted too.

The big difference between Jackson and Cicotte is that their is reasonable doubt in support of Jackson. There is no odubt about Cicotte being guilty at the highest level.

Of course you can overturn 1 ban and leave theothers alone although I'd like to see Buck Weaver's overturned also.

[leecemark]

The statement about Rose is simply nonsense.

For years, people vilified Rose, stating that what he needed to do was "come clean". So after all those years, Rose "came clean" and admitted that he bet on baseball.

What was the response? It was hardly positive; it was a renewal of the chorus of "Rose is a scumbag!", only now, it was coupled with people stating "See? We were right about Rose all along!"

Where, exactly, is it written that Pete Rose will be reinstated and be HOF eliglible if he "comes clean"? Or if he "shows contrition"? Because if that was the deal, then Rose did his part, but those who would "reward" the "contrition" seem to have failed to live up to their part of the bargain.

The people who demand Rose "come clean" have no intention of providing a course to follow by which Rose will be "restored". They just want the gory details of his conduct, plus, they want the benefit of seeing Rose squirm, publicly. These folks trump Rose in insincerity, and that's hard to do.

I can't blame Rose for taking the tack he's taken. He's not been promised reinstatement under any circumstances; indeed, most of what he's been offered is a "bait and switch". I don't really like Rose; I never have. He's an arrogant scumbag, but he won't be the first of that type in the HOF if he makes it there. MLB hasn't dealt honestly with Rose on the suspension and reinstatement issue for 5 minutes at a time over the last 20 years. Rose isn't wrong to presume that the dishonesty by which he's been dealt with won't continue.


--Rose has lied so much and for so long that it is virtually impossible for most to think he has "come clean" now. He has admitted to gradually worse crimes over the years and really only admitted the "whole truth" when he had a chance to profit from it with his book. He has dug his own grave with his conduct and created a situation where I could only believe he was being completley honest if he admitted to behavior so unforgivable that he could never be let into the Hall of Fame. It may have been different had he been honest from the beginning - or somewhat closer to the beginning. Had he admitted to a gambling problem, shown believable remorse and accepted that his issues precluded him from ever having another insider job in baseball then I could support his eligibility for Cooperstown. Whether MLB would have is. of course, another question.

[DoubleX]

The big difference between Jackson and Cicotte is that their is reasonable doubt in support of Jackson. There is no odubt about Cicotte being guilty at the highest level.

Of course you can overturn 1 ban and leave theothers alone although I'd like to see Buck Weaver's overturned also.

Whether Jackson actively participated in helping his team lose is irrelevant in my mind as he, by his own admission, agreed to be a part of the conspiracy and thus helped give life to it. Further, by his own admission, he expressed disappointment to Chick Gandil when he was not paid as much as had been promised. Perhaps receiving less than promised played into whatever change of heart some believe he later had. One might also argue that Jackson's actions may have been even more despicable than someone like Cicotte. At least Cicotte did his part to "earn" the dirty money. If Jackson had played hard though, he'd only be undermining the goal of the agreement he entered. Yet he accepted money anyway - it's kind of like Jackson had his cake and ate it too.

Nevertheless, it's quite possible that Jackson did further the conspiracy. There are accounts of flyballs dropping in that observers believed Jackson would typicall get to. He also struck out twice in the series after striking out just 10 times the whole season. It might mean nothing, but it's probably checking to see what kind of situations he struck out in and if they were the games where the "fix was on."

[jalbright]

Whether Jackson actively participated in helping his team lose is irrelevant in my mind as he, by his own admission, agreed to be a part of the conspiracy and thus helped give life to it. Further, by his own admission, he expressed disappointment to Chick Gandil when he was not paid as much as had been promised. Perhaps receiving less than promised played into whatever change of heart some believe he later had. One might also argue that Jackson's actions may have been even more despicable than someone like Cicotte. At least Cicotte did his part to "earn" the dirty money. If Jackson had played hard though, he'd only be undermining the goal of the agreement he entered. Yet he accepted money anyway - it's kind of like Jackson had his cake and ate it too.

Yeah, the best defense, given Jackson's sworn testimony, is that he took money from the conspirators, never intending to participate, had a change of heart but at best didn't tell all he knew until late the next season. Throw in the cry that he was illiterate and not too bright but ignore that he was intelligent enough to run a business on his own, and you've about got it. If you buy all that, perhaps you'd be interested in giving me your bank account information in an email and I'll eventually see you get millions from some estate/bank account in some Asian or African country, whether it be for personal or charitable use. ;) Of course, you might see your bank funds drop a bit for a while, but not to worry.

At a minimum, I find it beyond question that Jackson took the money to further the conspiracy, if only by silence. That, in and of itself, dishonored the game. Jackson sold his baseball honor, and he shouldn't be able to get it back. Such a person does not deserve to be honored by the game, and that's what induction into Cooperstown is.

[DoubleX]

Yeah, the best defense, given Jackson's sworn testimony, is that he took money from the conspirators, never intending to participate, had a change of heart but at best didn't tell all he knew until late the next season. Throw in the cry that he was illiterate and not too bright but ignore that he was intelligent enough to run a business on his own, and you've about got it. If you buy all that, perhaps you'd be interested in giving me your bank account information in an email and I'll eventually see you get millions from some estate/bank account in some Asian or African country, whether it be for personal or charitable use. ;) Of course, you might see your bank funds drop a bit for a while, but not to worry.

The Jackson "was just a uneducated rube" argument doesn't do anything for me either. As you said, he later ran his own business, but even he didn't, Jackson surely had a fundamental grasp of right and wrong. He played a game for a living, the goal of which was to win. He surely had to know that deliberately trying to lose, was wrong. I believe even a young child could wrap his/her mind around that.

Jackson is most appropriately on the outside of the Hall. Of all the typical players in this kind of discussion (Jackson, Rose, Perry, steroid users), Jackson is the player with whom I have the least sympathy.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm not as learned on the subject as others, such as Bill Burgess, are. But from what I've seen, I think Jackson should be in the Hall. Certainly if this were to have occurred or be judged by contemporary processes, then he certainly should be in the Hall. He wasn't found guilty in a court of law - I can't see today's players union allowing the Commissioner to ban a player that was not found guilty. I can't imagine a scenario in today's game that would let Jackson be questioned or give testimony without a lawyer. And I think any competent lawyer would counsel him to not incriminate himself and play up the point about trying to return the money and report the situation to the team President. I'd guess the lawyer would strongly emphasize that Jackson led both teams in hitting and slugging, struck out only twice in 32 at bats, and didn't commit an error in the field while recording 16 putouts and 1 assist, and argue that such effort is inconsistent with the efforts of someone trying to lose the series. With his own lawyer, and clearly with today's players union (and possibly in 1920 without one), Jackson could have been reinstated and thus eligible for the Hall.


You are confusing several different issues.

For starters in todays world Joe Jackson probably would get convicted for something. The laws are simply more comprehensive and not as relaxed as they were 80 some odd years ago.

Joe Jackson and the 7 other players were not on trial about game fixing nor were they acquitted of game fixing. Rigging a baseball game was not against the law. They were on trial on charges of defrauding others. They were found not guilty because baseball is entertainment.

Secondly Joe Jackson testified before a grand jury. You don't get a lawyer for that. It isn't a court case, it is an investigation into whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed to trial or to bring charges. Now Joe Jackson could have stonewalled that GJ panel but it is likely that in todays world the trial would still happen. Too many people were talking and in todays world the Feds would be handing out immunities left and right and threatening prosecution like crazy to get people to talk.

Finally no union is really going to go to the mattresses for players that threw the world series. Pete Rose still got a lifetime ban. Yes, the union would file a grievance, they are required to, but they wouldn't win.

[Ubiquitous]

The statement about Rose is simply nonsense.

For years, people vilified Rose, stating that what he needed to do was "come clean". So after all those years, Rose "came clean" and admitted that he bet on baseball.

What was the response? It was hardly positive; it was a renewal of the chorus of "Rose is a scumbag!", only now, it was coupled with people stating "See? We were right about Rose all along!"

This is a considerable glossy of the actual history of Rose's saga to come clean. Rose lied and he lied repeatedly. He would come "clean" only for us to find out that he is still lying. Then he would come "clean" again and again we would find out that he lied again. Rose has yet to come clean. Furthermore if Rose had come clean in the very beginning he would be in the HoF right now. He didn't and he continues to lie and because of that he is not in.

[Ubiquitous]

Joe Jackson was not put on trial to decide whether or not he threw the world series. Throwing the world series was not a crime. Still not sure if it is a crime nowadays. The government had to prove that by somehow throwing the world series paying fans were somehow defrauded. In otherwords they had to prove that fans were not entertained. Because of course nobody can sue or press charges becasue they lost money on bets, because of course gambling is illegal. That is why wrestlers do not get hauled off to jail even though the bouts are rigged.

The actual charge was conspiracy to defraud. I Which their actions were in the gray area for this. Who exactly are they defrauding? The people they were defrauding (people who bet on the series) were committing a crime anyway so their contractual rights are null and void.

Also of course it certainly helps when the confessions are stolen and thus not allowed into record.

Here are the charges:
(1) conspiring to defraud the public, (2) conspiring to defraud Sox catcher Ray Schalk, (3) conspiring to commit a confidence game, (4) conspiring to injure the business of the American League, and (5) conspiring to injure the business of Charles Comiskey.

Asd for Comiskey the defense showed that despite the fix Comiskey was making more money now then before the fix.

Here is some of the closing arguments for the defense


The final blow to the case came with the Judges instructions


So as you can see the case at least from a legal standpoint was not about throwing baseball games. So when they got the innocent verdict it did not prove that Joe and others did not throw the World Series.

Here is a post from several years back about the trial.

[Ace Venom]

Jackson sold his baseball honor, and he shouldn't be able to get it back. Such a person does not deserve to be honored by the game, and that's what induction into Cooperstown is.

I agree with you on this one. Joe Jackson is a bit like Benedict Arnold in this respect. While Jackson should not be honored by the game, people still recognize his accomplishments as a player. Ruth credited his swing to Joe Jackson. That was good enough for the times and it's certainly good enough now. His crime against the game is enough to keep him out of Cooperstown, which is justly deserved. Just like America will never forgive Benedict Arnold, Jackson deserves no honor from Major League Baseball.

[Brad Harris]

Yeah, the best defense, given Jackson's sworn testimony, is that he took money from the conspirators, never intending to participate, had a change of heart but at best didn't tell all he knew until late the next season. Throw in the cry that he was illiterate and not too bright but ignore that he was intelligent enough to run a business on his own, and you've about got it. If you buy all that, perhaps you'd be interested in giving me your bank account information in an email and I'll eventually see you get millions from some estate/bank account in some Asian or African country, whether it be for personal or charitable use. ;) Of course, you might see your bank funds drop a bit for a while, but not to worry.
Hey!
http://samburke.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/michael-scott-steve-carell.png?w=269&h=401
When the son of the deposed king of Nigeria e-mails you directly, asking for help, you help! :laugh

[jalbright]

Joe Jackson was not put on trial to decide whether or not he threw the world series. Throwing the world series was not a crime. Still not sure if it is a crime nowadays. The government had to prove that by somehow throwing the world series paying fans were somehow defrauded. In otherwords they had to prove that fans were not entertained. Because of course nobody can sue or press charges becasue they lost money on bets, because of course gambling is illegal. That is why wrestlers do not get hauled off to jail even though the bouts are rigged.

The actual charge was conspiracy to defraud. I Which their actions were in the gray area for this. Who exactly are they defrauding? The people they were defrauding (people who bet on the series) were committing a crime anyway so their contractual rights are null and void.

Also of course it certainly helps when the confessions are stolen and thus not allowed into record.

Here are the charges:
(1) conspiring to defraud the public, (2) conspiring to defraud Sox catcher Ray Schalk, (3) conspiring to commit a confidence game, (4) conspiring to injure the business of the American League, and (5) conspiring to injure the business of Charles Comiskey.

Asd for Comiskey the defense showed that despite the fix Comiskey was making more money now then before the fix.

Here is some of the closing arguments for the defense


The final blow to the case came with the Judges instructions


So as you can see the case at least from a legal standpoint was not about throwing baseball games. So when they got the innocent verdict it did not prove that Joe and others did not throw the World Series.

Today, with the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes, Joe would be prosecuted under that, as he would be part of an illegal conspiracy (fixing a sporting event for personal gain), whether the gambling on it be legal or not. Either way, I think it would have an easier go than the prosecution in Chicago in the 20's, even if the fixers weren't working on helping those they paid off.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This is a considerable glossy of the actual history of Rose's saga to come clean. Rose lied and he lied repeatedly. He would come "clean" only for us to find out that he is still lying. Then he would come "clean" again and again we would find out that he lied again. Rose has yet to come clean. Furthermore if Rose had come clean in the very beginning he would be in the HoF right now. He didn't and he continues to lie and because of that he is not in.

Your statements imply that there was some kind of agreement where Rose would be qualified for the HOF, or for reinstatement, if he would only "admit" what he had done.

This is the premise of the anti-Rose crowd (many of them, anyway) that I simly don't understand where it came from. Rose has NEVER been promised any quid pro quo as far as reinstatement goes, or as far as enshrinement in the HOF goes.

The idea that Rose would have already been in the HOF if he had "come clean" in the very beginning is simply nonsense. If that's true, then show me who promised this to Rose. Because if no one with the power to keep the promise told Rose he'd be in if he "came clean", then they're just writing fiction and opinion.

[Ubiquitous]

Two things here:

If Rose had come clean at the start then in all probability this whole storm never happens. Rose is on the ineligible list because he could not rein himself in despite the fact that baseball gave him numerous chances to resolve this issue before it went nuclear.

Second thing: This isn't about some written formal agreement. Rose can ask for reinstatement at anytime now and the Commish can allow him back in at anytime. If Rose hadn't stonewalled and played the victim from the very beginning then the perception about him would be very different. It is extremely hard to hold a grudge against someone for many years, especially when popular sentiment is for them and they have shown remorse for their actions. People want Rose in the Hall, the reporters who vote wanted Rose in the hall. It is his own actions that block his access into the hall.

Finally: Of course it is opinion. Everything so far is opinion. Your view on the Rose subject is opinion, my view is opinion, everybodies view is an opinion. But so what? Does that mean we shouldn't have this conversation?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Two things here:

If Rose had come clean at the start then in all probability this whole storm never happens. Rose is on the ineligible list because he could not rein himself in despite the fact that baseball gave him numerous chances to resolve this issue before it went nuclear.

Second thing: This isn't about some written formal agreement. Rose can ask for reinstatement at anytime now and the Commish can allow him back in at anytime. If Rose hadn't stonewalled and played the victim from the very beginning then the perception about him would be very different. It is extremely hard to hold a grudge against someone for many years, especially when popular sentiment is for them and they have shown remorse for their actions. People want Rose in the Hall, the reporters who vote wanted Rose in the hall. It is his own actions that block his access into the hall.

Finally: Of course it is opinion. Everything so far is opinion. Your view on the Rose subject is opinion, my view is opinion, everybodies view is an opinion. But so what? Does that mean we shouldn't have this conversation?

I fail to see the basis on which to believe that had Rose "come clean", he'd not have the problems that are keeping him out of the HOF today.

Did Giamatti, Vincent, or someone else PROMISE Rose that his punishment would be temporal if only he made some kind of public pronouncement? Did anyone with the authority to reverse Rose's punishment inform Rose as to what such a pronouncement needed to include? And if such a message was carried to Rose, what was his response to it?

It's pretty high and mighty for we, out here in cyberspace, to demand Rose do this, or do that, to "make it right". I have NEVER seen ANY evidence to suggest that anyone in the Commissioner's office (ANY Commissioner) ever gave Rose a quid pro quo. Come clean (whatever that means) and you'll be reinstated someday. That was never the deal; it was the mantra put forth by sanctimonoius fans and writers, but it was never put to Rose as a formal offer of reinstatement.

In truth, Rose was right to conclude that "coming clean" would be admitting that he stopped beating his wife. Any disclosure made by Rose that I can think of was greeted not with gratitude for his "candor", but with more vitriol. Rose was right the first time; he should have stayed silent.

It's great to share opinions, but a valid opinion is one with a factual basis. What is the factual basis for the opinion that Rose would be in the HOF if only he would have "come clean"? If I'm missing someone, I'll be glad to be shown.

[Ace Venom]

In truth, Rose was right to conclude that "coming clean" would be admitting that he stopped beating his wife. Any disclosure made by Rose that I can think of was greeted not with gratitude for his "candor", but with more vitriol. Rose was right the first time; he should have stayed silent.

It's not really a matter that Rose came clean, it's when he came clean. He would have been banned for admitting it from the get go because this isn't like taking steroids. Rose should have stayed silent. He's never getting into the Hall of Fame and he does not deserve it. He had nothing to gain by coming clean.

[Ubiquitous]

Pete Rose has never come clean. We still to this day do not know how the public will react when he does come clean. At this point Rose has lied so much and so often that we probably won't believe him when he does come clean.


Baseball knew about Rose's problem long before Bart pulled the plug on Rose. If Rose had come clean early on he wouldn't even be out of the game. Baseball gavce him many chances to clean up his act, he refused to do so. He continued to stonewall and lie and paint MLB as the bad guy for well over a decade after his suspension. Rose has burned a lot of bridges over the last two decades and that makes it nearly impossible for him to cross the river into the hall.

Even when Bart was going after him if he had shown remorse instead of playing the victim it would have only been a suspension and not an expulsion. Rose played brinkmanship and he lost when baseball said we don't care if you are in the game or not.

Baseball has given players and personnel a million chances when they show remorse and don't attack baseball. Look at Doc Gooden, look at Steve Howe. Hell, even George Steinbrenner came back from a lifetime banishment.

[KCGHOST]

Shoeless Joe is simply the most tragic figure in baseball history. Really sad. Once he took the money he doomed himself. All that other stuff is simply window dressing of one form or another.

[Fuzzy Bear]

This idea that Rose would be in the HOF if only he came clean is fashioned out of whole cloth. If Giamatti had this expectation of contrition from Rose, when did he convey this to Rose? I don't believe that he ever did. Giamatti's goal was to ban Rose because he was convinced that Rose did, in fact, bet on baseball.

What has, IMO, been the biggest barrier to Rose's reinstatement is the sudden death of Giamatti, soon after the Rose matter was resolved. Rose has been blamed by many for causing the stress that brought on Giamatti's fatal heart attack, and this has had an effect, even now, on the public perception of Rose. (It's amazing how people talk about the stress on Giamatti from the Rose situation killing him, but how little attention is given to the fact that Giamatti was a long-term heavy cigarette smoker with not the healthiest of lifestyles.)

Nevertheless, Giamatti died, and Rose's fate rested for years in the hands of Fay Vincent, a man beholden to Giamatti. It was Vincent, not Giamatti, who pushed the HOF to adopt the rule prohibiting the enshrinement of players under suspension. (While the HOF made the rule that keeps Rose out, it did so at the behest of MLB; when MLB comes knocking, the HOF wants to be accomodating.)

This idea that Rose would be OK with the HOF if only he admitted all and said he was sorry is ridiculous on its face. There are several reasons I say this, but the main reason, as I see it, is the literal application of baseball's rules on "Crookedness and its penalties". That rule, on its face, calls for a lifetime suspension for doing what Rose was alleged to have done (and, indeed, for what he has already admitted doing). I have many, many criticisms of that rule, not the least of which is that it does not take into account the HUGE difference between what Pete Rose did (and Paul Hornung and Alex Karras did as well in the NFL) and what the Black Sox did. It's the difference between "risky behavior" and outright crookedness, yet the rule makes no distinction, and the many that hate Rose without regard for the circumstances of the matter hang their argument for "no Rose, no way" on the literal application of the crookedness rule, whether it be fair or not. (FWIW, Hornung and Karras bet on their own teams in the NFL; they were each suspended for only one year, reinstated, and Karras had a career as an announcer while Hornung went into the NFL HOF in Canton.)

Regardless of what the crookedness rule states, the reality is that what Rose did is far different from what the Black Sox did. Rose developed a serious problem with gambling, and he exercised poor judgement, but there is no evidence that he ever bet against his own team or threw a game. None. It's time that Rose be dealt with on the basis of what he actually did, as a matter of fairness. It's also time that the folks who want to be self-righteous and crow about Rose's failure to confess, profess repentance in the proper manner, give it a rest. We know what Rose has done; there is no evidence that he has done more than what we know. It's time that we judge him on the basis of the record, and not on the basis of the desire to make an example of him.

[EdTarbusz]

Shoeless Joe is simply the most tragic figure in baseball history. Really sad. Once he took the money he doomed himself. All that other stuff is simply window dressing of one form or another.

Tragic figure makes me think of someone like Ray Chapman. I think Joe Jackson is a pathetic figure.

[Los Bravos]

This idea that Rose would be in the HOF if only he came clean is fashioned out of whole cloth. Giamatti's goal was to ban Rose because he was convinced that Rose did, in fact, bet on baseball.

What has, IMO, been the biggest barrier to Rose's reinstatement is the sudden death of Giamatti, soon after the Rose matter was resolved.I didn't want to quote FB's whole post, since it's directly above mine, but I agree with every word, the quoted ones above most especially.

Rose's goose was cooked the minute it was clear to Giamatti that he'd bet on the game. He had no intention of lifting that ban, not the next year, not ever. It's become his de facto legacy and the only chance Rose has of ever having the ban lifted is if there is a comissioner who wasn't part of the heirarchy when this all happened.

[Ace Venom]

Win a game here and that's the bet, right? If Rose bet on his team to win, then he would make sure he had the right players in place to win. That would mean pitching schedules, who to put in the lineup, etc. It could be those players could have been used in other more important games because the ultimate goal of any team is to win the pennant and then win the World Series. Rose may have never bet on his team to lose, but what was the impact of stacking the odds in his favor to win on the rest of the season?

Here's the problem we run into with the case of Pete Rose. Say Pete Rose only bet on his team to win. That's fair enough. Deliberately throwing a game is more obvious and Rose likely was trying to win the other games he managed. But could some of those losses have been wins if he treated every single game the same rather than gambling on a few here and there and stacking the odds in his favor?

Pete Rose's case is not a cut and dry case of only betting on his team to win. He's a manager and had the power to stack the odds in his favor. I'm sure he lost a few bets because it's harder to win a game than throw a game. But if he loses bets by betting on his team to win, who is to say the temptation was not there to throw games? Pete Rose is not worthy of the Hall of Fame and never will be. I don't care if he has the hits record. Someone is going to break it sooner or later.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Win a game here and that's the bet, right? If Rose bet on his team to win, then he would make sure he had the right players in place to win. That would mean pitching schedules, who to put in the lineup, etc. It could be those players could have been used in other more important games because the ultimate goal of any team is to win the pennant and then win the World Series. Rose may have never bet on his team to lose, but what was the impact of stacking the odds in his favor to win on the rest of the season?

Here's the problem we run into with the case of Pete Rose. Say Pete Rose only bet on his team to win. That's fair enough. Deliberately throwing a game is more obvious and Rose likely was trying to win the other games he managed. But could some of those losses have been wins if he treated every single game the same rather than gambling on a few here and there and stacking the odds in his favor?

Pete Rose's case is not a cut and dry case of only betting on his team to win. He's a manager and had the power to stack the odds in his favor. I'm sure he lost a few bets because it's harder to win a game than throw a game. But if he loses bets by betting on his team to win, who is to say the temptation was not there to throw games? Pete Rose is not worthy of the Hall of Fame and never will be. I don't care if he has the hits record. Someone is going to break it sooner or later.

Rose's career IS, in fact, a cut and dried case about betting on his own team to win. There are no SERIOUS allegations of Rose betting against his own team, and those FRIVILOUS allegations of Rose betting against his own team lack any sort of reasonable evidence to even keep the discussion going. If there WERE real evidence that Rose bet against his own team, there would, IMO, be far more of a consensus to let the status quo remain then there is now.

Does one thing lead to another? Does the kind of behavior Rose engaged in (that we KNOW of) lead to the dishonest outcome of games? Of course it can, but potential bad outcomes and actual events in this case are two very different things. In evaluating situations such as Rose's, simple fairness (the fairness we would wish from those who might ever judge any of our actions and mistakes) requires that we judge Rose on what did happen, and not what may have happened in a worst case scenario. Rose does not, as far as anyone has been able to reasonbly prove, been the cause of the dishonest outcome of even a single contest.

[Ace Venom]

I'd like to note we're talking about a corporation with every right to allow or disallow who they want to employ and a Hall of Fame that honors those who played the game. This isn't a court of law. If we were just talking about a court of law, I'd be in total agreement. In the absence of evidence, we have to assume that Pete Rose only bet on his team to win, which is the point I initially hit. Where I arrived at the lack of a cut and dry case is just betting to win one game could lead to Rose stacking the odds in his favor to win. Those might have been players better used for other games and some games that could have been wins would have been losses. It's not that I don't believe Rose deliberately threw games and it's quite the opposite. Did he ever throw games? My guess is that he didn't do it intentionally. A man with power to stack the odds in his favor is going to do it, especially if he wants to win. There's no telling what effects it had on the rest of the games. It is for that reason I say it's not cut and dry.

Now if we walk to talk about overturning Rose's ban, we have to remember that Rose will want to immediately return to managing ball clubs. What owner in his right mind would hire Rose? I'm not saying it's right and I would have hoped he learned his lesson. The only way you're going to get the ban overturned is if there is a clause that forbids Rose from managing a team ever again. That's the only way I'd be able to stomach the ban being overturned. We know he can't get in on the writer's ballot now, so Rose would be condemned to the purgatory of the Veteran's Committee unless the Hall decided to go ahead and let Rose appear on the writer's ballot the full fifteen years he missed. But there's no chance of any of the above I described happening. Pete Rose is out. He'll always be on the outside looking in.

[Brad Harris]

I'd like to note we're talking about a corporation with every right to allow or disallow who they want to employ and a Hall of Fame that honors those who played the game. This isn't a court of law. If we were just talking about a court of law, I'd be in total agreement. In the absence of evidence, we have to assume that Pete Rose only bet on his team to win, which is the point I initially hit. Where I arrived at the lack of a cut and dry case is just betting to win one game could lead to Rose stacking the odds in his favor to win. Those might have been players better used for other games and some games that could have been wins would have been losses. It's not that I don't believe Rose deliberately threw games and it's quite the opposite. Did he ever throw games? My guess is that he didn't do it intentionally. A man with power to stack the odds in his favor is going to do it, especially if he wants to win. There's no telling what effects it had on the rest of the games. It is for that reason I say it's not cut and dry.
I hear this from time-to-time in these discussions: that somehow we're supposed to say that because Rose tried to win in a single game (on which he potentially had a financial stake in the outcome), he somehow compromised his team's chances of winning other games (which he presumably wasn't planning on having that same stake in). This doesn't hold any water with me. In trying to win this game, managers risk their team's future opportunities for success all the time. That has nothing to do with whether or not a manager might have made $5,000 off a positive outcome that day. Dusty Baker ruined his team's young arms with his in-game usage strategies (i.e. trying to win that day.) Baker wasn't intentionally jeopardizing his team's pennant chances. He wasn't "throwing" potential wins for the as-yet unplayed schedule. It's a bogus line of reasoning to apply some sort of criminality or illicitness to the exact same behavior when one attributes it to Rose. This, to me, is just a piling on of additional (illogical) arguments in an attempt to bury Rose's case in an avalanche of many arguments (good or bad). Let's stick to stuff that's relevant. The possible loss of potential wins in games Rose didn't have a financial stake in isn't one.

And, it may come as a shock to some, but since Rose was being paid to win every game he managed by his employer, how an extra five grand (or whatever it was) is suddenly supposed to have motivated a millionaire who spent his adult life earning his living from winning ballgames is a bit specious to begin with. Sure, the need to win for a gambler is as demonstrative as professional sports when manifesting a competitive streak, but the bottom line is that the outcome Rose desired wasn't changed by the additional fiduciary interest.

All that to say: nice try, but I'm not buying it.[/QUOTE]

[Ace Venom]

Baker wasn't intentionally jeopardizing his team's pennant chances. He wasn't "throwing" potential wins for the as-yet unplayed schedule. It's a bogus line of reasoning to apply some sort of criminality or illicitness to the exact same behavior when one attributes it to Rose. This, to me, is just a piling on of additional (illogical) arguments in an attempt to bury Rose's case in an avalanche of many arguments (good or bad). Let's stick to stuff that's relevant. The possible loss of potential wins in games Rose didn't have a financial stake in isn't one.

First, I made the distinction between intentionally throwing games and losing games down the road as a consequence of trying to win games where Rose had a financial stake (i.e. gambling money). Second, in arguing the irrelevance of my point, you arrived at the same point I did by using Dusty Baker as an example. The point is that it does have an impact, but we really don't know how much of an impact it has. To say that it doesn't while saying that it can makes no sense at all.

I will say again that I do not believe Rose was deliberately trying to lose games. However, we can't tell if the impact of all the games he managed would have been better if he had not had extra financial incentive to try to win that one game. Sorry, but I'm not buying that Rose didn't hurt his team unintentionally.

[jalbright]

Win a game here and that's the bet, right? If Rose bet on his team to win, then he would make sure he had the right players in place to win. That would mean pitching schedules, who to put in the lineup, etc. It could be those players could have been used in other more important games because the ultimate goal of any team is to win the pennant and then win the World Series. Rose may have never bet on his team to lose, but what was the impact of stacking the odds in his favor to win on the rest of the season?

Here's the problem we run into with the case of Pete Rose. Say Pete Rose only bet on his team to win. That's fair enough. Deliberately throwing a game is more obvious and Rose likely was trying to win the other games he managed. But could some of those losses have been wins if he treated every single game the same rather than gambling on a few here and there and stacking the odds in his favor?

Pete Rose's case is not a cut and dry case of only betting on his team to win. He's a manager and had the power to stack the odds in his favor. I'm sure he lost a few bets because it's harder to win a game than throw a game. But if he loses bets by betting on his team to win, who is to say the temptation was not there to throw games? Pete Rose is not worthy of the Hall of Fame and never will be. I don't care if he has the hits record. Someone is going to break it sooner or later.

Actually, the evidence I'm aware of is that Pete bet on his team to win every chance he got, and in the same amount each time. Pete was a compulsive gambler, but not a particularly good one.

As the "deal" for Pete was that he'd resign and be out of the game for a year, at which time he could apply for reinstatement. I don't care about the initial intent of the parties, it would have been damned difficult for baseball to keep Pete out for very long had he: 1) admitted he had a gambling problem, 2) gotten treatment for it, 3) stayed away from gambling for a year or more after the treatment, and 4) told the version of events we now have. The whole dynamic of the situation would have been changed. Frankly, I believe the whole reasoning behind the ability to apply for reinstatement points to the idea this scenario was clearly contemplated by the Commissioner. Pete chose another path, and the path he chose made even more enemies.

[Ubiquitous]

The evidence actually shows that Pete did not bet on the Reds to win every night. It depended on who was pitching for him that night.

As for Pete, it is of course just opinion but if Rose had not turned it into a war he would be in baseball right now.

If the first time Bart called him into his office about gambling rumors Pete had confessed and asked for help and forgiveness his punishment would not have been as severe. But Pete isn't built that way. He turned it into a war and Bart and his sense of right and wrong could not let Pete win and get away with what he was doing.

Pete Rose handled this whoe situation wrong, then again if he was somebody who could handle this kind of situation properly then he never would have been in this situation.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The evidence actually shows that Pete did not bet on the Reds to win every night. It depended on who was pitching for him that night.

As for Pete, it is of course just opinion but if Rose had not turned it into a war he would be in baseball right now.

If the first time Bart called him into his office about gambling rumors Pete had confessed and asked for help and forgiveness his punishment would not have been as severe. But Pete isn't built that way. He turned it into a war and Bart and his sense of right and wrong could not let Pete win and get away with what he was doing.

Pete Rose handled this whoe situation wrong, then again if he was somebody who could handle this kind of situation properly then he never would have been in this situation.


If Peter Ueberrroth were still Commissioner, do you think it would have been handled differently, changing only that one player?

[Ubiquitous]

Ueberroth already knew about Pete's gambling problem and had called him onto the carpet about it. Peter was unwilling to drop the hammer on Pete. You also have to remember that when Peter was Commish Rose was going for the hit record. Peter was a marketing guy and he was going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Bart was the not the first person in baseball to realize that Rose had a gambling problem. People in baseball knew what Pete was doing since the 70's. People had been trying to get him to stop or at least tone it down since then as well.

[Ace Venom]

If that was the case, I guess they were forced to ban him because they weren't able to keep it secret anymore. Rose brought it upon himself, which doesn't help me change my opinion of his Cooperstown qualifications. He made his bed, so he can keep sleeping in it as far as I'm concerned. That's the attitude of Bud Selig and it will be for the next commissioner.

[Ubiquitous]

They could have kept it a secret but Bart didn't operate that way. Bart was an idealist not a pragmatist. Bart forced the issue instead of pretending like it didn't exist, he was the opposite of Bud Selig in this regard.

[Ace Venom]

And we all know Bud Selig had no interest in lifting the ban on Rose. I'm actually wondering if the next commissioner will lift ban. Selig did hold Rose's Cooperstown future in his hand, but understood the precedent that it would set and decided not to lift the ban. Now if the ban is ever lifted, Rose's fate would be left to the Veteran's Committee. We all know how that has worked for Ron Santo.

The ban isn't going to be lifted, so that's not a worry. The problem with it is then every McGwire, Bonds and Clemens supporter would point to the hypocrisy of the decision to let Rose back in for doing something much worse. The steroid era probably put Selig in an interesting position and he has thus not made a ruling even now. While I won't make that assumption, it's safe to say that until there is a commissioner willing to make the distinction and not care about the consequences, Rose is not getting back into baseball.

[Brad Harris]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that Rose didn't hurt his team unintentionally.
I'm saying that if Rose hurt his team unintentionally, it is inconsequential because those are the same managerial decisions he'd make anyway. His gambling had nothing to do with game-time managerial decisions (unless he was trying to lose games) in a way that he wouldn't otherwise have been making them.

Nevermind the uselessness of trying to judge someone for what might have occured as the result of their actions.

[Brad Harris]

Peter was a marketing guy and he was [not] going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Which alone separates him from every other Commissioner since Landis' death.

[DoubleX]

And, it may come as a shock to some, but since Rose was being paid to win every game he managed by his employer, how an extra five grand (or whatever it was) is suddenly supposed to have motivated a millionaire who spent his adult life earning his living from winning ballgames is a bit specious to begin with. Sure, the need to win for a gambler is as demonstrative as professional sports when manifesting a competitive streak, but the bottom line is that the outcome Rose desired wasn't changed by the additional fiduciary interest.

I don't think it's far-fetched at all to suppose that Rose may have intentionally cost his team games. I believe we still don't know the full extent of Rose's immersion in the gambling world. Such a world has a very seedy underbelly and that's precisely why baseball is so insecure about the infiltration of gambling in the game. Who knows how deep Rose got into gambling and what kind of debts he may have accumulated in those ventures. It's obvious that money could corrupt his judgment, so is it really far-fetched to think that some bad deals could have pushed him to effectuate negative outcomes to compensate?

As a side note, I've been to Las Vegas 3 or 4 times in the last 4 years. Each time I've been there I've seen Pete Rose in selling his autograph in Caesars Palace. For a guy who supposedly has the greatest love for the game and a burning desire for reinstatement, you'd think he'd do a better job to stay away from a place epitomizing the very thing that destroyed his legacy and stature in his beloved game. I understand the guy needs money, but the simple fact he would continue to seek money in a casino perhaps does indicate how the pursuit of money can undermine his better judgment.

[Brad Harris]

I don't think anyone is going to argue that Pete Rose has poor judgment. Poor judgment about who he spends his time hanging around. Poor judgment about how he spends or invests his money. Poor judgment about obeying the law. Poor judgment about doing things he knew would jeopardize his livelihood. Poor judgment between right and wrong. No argument there.

[Los Bravos]

I don't know where you guys are getting this scenario in which Rose shows contrition and gets reinstated by Bart Giamatti a year later. You're talking about a guy so anxious to nail Rose that he wrote a letter to a federal judge on behalf of a convicted cocaine dealer because he had provided evidence against Rose. A guy who signed an agreement with Rose specifically and explicitly reading that no finding had been made that Rose bet on games, who turned around almost immediately and said publicly that he thought Rose had bet on games. If any of this had happened under a legal system with proper rules and binding injunctions, either of those things would have torn it to shreds.

Ubi called Giamatti and idealist. To at least some of us, he was a priggish martinet. It's clear to me from all available evidence that Giamatti had a personal animus towards Rose and had no intention of ever letting him back into the game, no matter what Rose believed. Pete thought he signed the effective equivalent of a nolo contendre plea. Instead, he got a life sentence with occasional parole hearings, none of which would ever go his way.

[Brad Harris]

To at least some of us, he was a priggish martinet. It's clear to me from all available evidence that Giamatti had a personal animus towards Rose and had no intention of ever letting him back into the game, no matter what Rose believed. Pete thought he signed the effective equivalent of a nolo contendre plea. Instead, he got a life sentence with occasional parole hearings, none of which would ever go his way.
Again with the poor judgment.

[Los Bravos]

Definitely. He was far out of his element there. That alone should cause some pause to people.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't think it's far-fetched at all to suppose that Rose may have intentionally cost his team games. I believe we still don't know the full extent of Rose's immersion in the gambling world. Such a world has a very seedy underbelly and that's precisely why baseball is so insecure about the infiltration of gambling in the game. Who knows how deep Rose got into gambling and what kind of debts he may have accumulated in those ventures. It's obvious that money could corrupt his judgment, so is it really far-fetched to think that some bad deals could have pushed him to effectuate negative outcomes to compensate?


These are all "couldas". There is no proof, whatsoever, that this DID happen.

Pete Rose is a scumbag. I grant you that. He was a lousy husband to his first wife, a lousy father, and something of a phony with a one-time "good guy" image that morphed into the image of a punk criminal.

All of this does not make it OK to deal with Rose as he has been dealt with. The facts do not support any kind of conclusion that he threw games, or even bet against his own team. Is it really unreasonable to ask people to deal with Rose based on the facts of the situation, and not on the worst case scenarios that might have happened, but didn't?

[Ubiquitous]

I don't know where you guys are getting this scenario in which Rose shows contrition and gets reinstated by Bart Giamatti a year later. You're talking about a guy so anxious to nail Rose that he wrote a letter to a federal judge on behalf of a convicted cocaine dealer because he had provided evidence against Rose. A guy who signed an agreement with Rose specifically and explicitly reading that no finding had been made that Rose bet on games, who turned around almost immediately and said publicly that he thought Rose had bet on games. If any of this had happened under a legal system with proper rules and binding injunctions, either of those things would have torn it to shreds.

Ubi called Giamatti and idealist. To at least some of us, he was a priggish martinet. It's clear to me from all available evidence that Giamatti had a personal animus towards Rose and had no intention of ever letting him back into the game, no matter what Rose believed. Pete thought he signed the effective equivalent of a nolo contendre plea. Instead, he got a life sentence with occasional parole hearings, none of which would ever go his way.


The situation between Rose and Bart got that way because of the way Pete handled this situation. Everything about the case would have been different if Rose had handled it differently.

Though I do think that Rose could eventually have come back if he had shown genuine remorse after the suspension. I'm betting somwhere around the turn of the century baseball would have let him back in.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The situation between Rose and Bart got that way because of the way Pete handled this situation. Everything about the case would have been different if Rose had handled it differently.

Though I do think that Rose could eventually have come back if he had shown genuine remorse after the suspension. I'm betting somwhere around the turn of the century baseball would have let him back in.

This is a case of repeating something like a mantra until it looks and feels true in the mind of the mantra repeater.

What is a fact (not an opinion) is that the agreement Rose signed with MLB in 1989 contained no official finding that Rose bet on baseball. This is of huge significance; indeed, Rose wouldn't have signed the agreement had it had an official finding.

What does the aftermath of all this say about Bart Giamatti's conduct? Giamatti negotiated and signed an agreement with Rose, part of which specifically contains a clause stating that there is no official finding that Rose bet on baseball, when immediately after the agreement is signed, Giamatti opines to the press that he believes that Rose actually did bet on baseball? What does this say about Giamatti, his making a statement in the capacity of MLB Commissioner that directly contradicts an agreement he just signed? Much is made about what a scumbag Rose is, but, honestly, where is the "good faith" on the part of Giamatti? It's not there, period!

Was Giamatti right in his personal opinion? Yes, he was; most people thought so at the time, and Rose, over time, has validated the correctness of Giamatti's opinion. But the fact that this was Giamatti's opinion is evidence that Giamatti's goal was to keep Rose out of baseball, period. I have concluded that Giamatti's secondary goal was to build public support for his decision, and one way to do this was to "prove" that Rose "bet on baseball".

Since Giamatti couldn't "prove" that Rose bet on baseball by the investigative process, (indeed, he signed an agreement with no official finding that Rose bet on baseball), he needed Rose's "confession". Hence, the calls to "come clean". Giamatti would not live to see this, of course, but Fay Vincent, I believe, was smart enough (and lawyerly enough) to know that what was needed to make the suspension of Rose stick was Rose's admission that he had bet on baseball. This is why all the messages aimed at Rose to "come clean". It's a bait-and-switch. Admit what you did, Pete, and we can begin the "healing" process. "OK, I bet on baseball!" Ooops, Pete, sorry. You broke the "crookedness" rule. Too bad, so sad.

In this area, Rose's judgement was, IMO, rather good. I think Rose had the good sense to realize that once he "came clean", MLB would be able to hit him over the head with this rule ad infinitum. Which they've done. Rose, once upon a time, could hang his had on a lawsuit. "You're banning me with no official finding I've bet on baseball!" Rose, by his own hand, can't say this anymore.

The way Rose has been dealt with by MLB has been hypocrisy of the highest order, and it's being signed off on by folks who, IMO, aren't looking at the big picture. Rose's actions are NOT the actions of the Black Sox, or of Hal Chase; indeed, the name "Pete Rose" is synomymous with "doing anything to win" moreso than any player I can think of.

I believe that confession and remorse is what MLB wanted from Rose to cover themselves. I believe that Rose was smart enough to see this, but the drumbeat of "come clean" over the years was so great that he gave in to what, in Rose's mind, must have turned out to be a false promise. If one covers the story closely, one sees the clear truth; at no time did any person with authority EVER convey to Rose the quid pro quo; confess and receive absolution and restoration. It's time to recognize that Rose has not thrown games, and there is no evidence that he did, and his suspension ought to be lifted. While I would never hire Rose for anything besides a coach or batting instructor, there is no reason not to restore Rose to HOF-eligibility, and there is no reason to ban him from MLB as has happened. It's time for MLB to recognize that Rose is not one of the Black Sox, and that it's in MLB's interest, and the interest of baseball history, to sensibly restore Rose, as opposed to endlessly attempting to vindicate Giamatti.

[Ubiquitous]

Bart could prove and did prove that Rose bet on baseball. The two sides came to an agreement to end this whole affair. Baseball didn't do it because they couldn't prove anything. They did it to end the media storm that was giving baseball a black eye and giving Bart a heart attack.

Rose's judgement in the sense of baseball was horrible, in the sense of legality it was good. Rose needed this investigation to end because the government was looking into him for tax reasons and he didn't want another agency looking into his affairs and dredging up evidence that would be used against him in a court of law. The government coming after him is why he signed the agreement. Now in terms of baseball he was stupid to sign the deal, but that isn't why he signed the agreement. Pete Rose still had his head up his rear end when he signed that agreement and still thought he was untouchable. He was quite clearly wrong. MLB had and still has a huge amount of evidence against Rose. If Rose had fought this he would still lose and it what is worse for him is that there would be more evidence against him in his tax fights.

Baseball has never ever needed Pete Rose to come clean so they could ban him. Pete denied any wrongdoing for over a decade and in that time they did not let him back him. Pete Rose has never ever come clean, Pete Rose has never ever shown remorse for his actions.

Again Pete Rose turned this thing into what it is. He chose this route, he didn't have to and it didn't have to end this way. He chose to fight, he chose to lie and say he was the victim. He is the one that made this into what it was. Nobody else did it, he alone is culpable for this outcome.

[Los Bravos]

They did it to end the media storm that was giving baseball a black eye and giving Bart a heart attack.:dismay: Well, that's it for me in this discussion.

FB has stated the case in an irrefutable and logically airtight way and he's answered with a melodramtic scenario, one that has hung over this whole thing for 20 years and will always block any attempts at reason, as long as it's invoked.

Just for the record, A. Bartlett Giamatti was an overweight, middle aged heavy smoker. A man with quite a few risk factors already at play in his life well before he became comissioner.

[DoubleX]

These are all "couldas". There is no proof, whatsoever, that this DID happen.

Pete Rose is a scumbag. I grant you that. He was a lousy husband to his first wife, a lousy father, and something of a phony with a one-time "good guy" image that morphed into the image of a punk criminal.

All of this does not make it OK to deal with Rose as he has been dealt with. The facts do not support any kind of conclusion that he threw games, or even bet against his own team. Is it really unreasonable to ask people to deal with Rose based on the facts of the situation, and not on the worst case scenarios that might have happened, but didn't?

The simple fact that he introduced a gambling element into the game is enough though because it opens the door for all sorts of possibilities, whether they can be proved or not. Baseball is rightly very insecure about the infiltration of gambling in the game, and thus can't take any chances with a situation like this. What kind of message does it send when it says that Rose's activity was permissible? Rose may not have taken the action further, but someone else may have down the line. Plus, it seems that we really don't know all there is to know about Rose. More and more comes out over the years. He denied doing anything, then admits to betting several years later. He denied betting on his own team, then admitted to that too. So what's next?

[Paul Wendt]

. . .
If ALL of them had been KNOWN to be clean, Mr. Ban Johnson would have expelled them arbitrarily anyway.

No one here seems to grasp that it was a political decison. It looked bad, so those who looked bad had to be sacrificed. Ban Johnson, who I PRAY doesn't slither into our Fever Hall of Fame, gave the following press conference in Jan., 1927, during the "Leonard, Speaker, Wood, Cobb Affair". He gave this amazing, phenomenal press conference, AFTER he discovered that both were CLEAN.
. . .

"This data belongs to me, and not to Landis. The American League gave Landis enough to show why Cobb and Speaker were no longer wanted by us. That's all we needed to give him. I have reports on Speaker which Landis never will get unless we go to court."
To me it is remarkable that the baseball power struggle is so open and that Johnson is so blunt about it. I'm sure that some of his own joined Landis in thinking that the time has come, Ban must go.

At the same time I don't see any grounds for calling Johnson's decisions "arbitrary" or simply "political" and none for believing that "he discovered that both were CLEAN."