Joe Jackson 1919 Black Sox & Pete Rose.

[63x927is58401]

Back around 2002, I heard Bud Selig make a remark, in some way of allowing
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson & Pete Rose, into Baseball Hall of Fame.
What altared his remark, to something else?

Saturday, August 23rd, 1999, Commisioner, Bud Selig said Pete Rose would be invited to the 1999 World Series, if Rose was elected to the All-Century Team & he (Pete Rose) was.
Another note, Rose recieved 629,742 votes & was the ninth of thirty-four All-Century Starters, among outfielders.
Better explain, Rose was listed as an outfielder & ranked 9th among 34 outfielders.

[HDH]

Since Joe Jakson, Pete Rose, and others are subject to lifelong bans from baseball, it is sensible that Joe Jackson should be eligible for HOF considersation. He served his time and his lifetime is long past.

[Kroxquo]

The purpose is to make the statement that anyone who undermines the very integrity of the game itself has no place in the Hall of Fame. Period.

I've heard that "lifetime ban is over" argument many times and I find it to be both fallacious and disingenuous. What you are saying is that because what Jackson, and more recently Rose, did occurred so long ago and because the perpetrators are deceased, that we can show clemency. Sorry, but I'm also not forgiving Nixon for undermining the confidence in the legitimacy of the Presidency, and I'm not forgiving Joe Jackson for undermining the belief that baseball is on the up and up.

You can argue that Jackson was not involved - some such as Bill Burgess, have quite persuasively. They haven't convinced me yet. But I don't see how, if someone believes that Jackson was involved, that s/he could argue against a permanent ban.

[Badfish]

I still think that it was Baseball's fault as to the Black sox scandal, if the governing bodies would have listened to what was going on these event would have never taken place. Hal Chase got a managing job after his manager was fired for calling him a cheat, thus making plyers feel secure in their doings, lets face it those guys were all under paid with no way out of Commiskey's clutches. If baseball keeps guy's like Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver out so should Comminskey and Ban Johnson be left out as they both had prior knowledge of the events that transpired in 1919.

[Skeeters Fan]

Originally Posted by Badfish

I still think that it was Baseball's fault as to the Black Sox scandal

"Baseball" didn't throw the World Series, specific players did that. "Baseball" didn't pay the players to throw the Series, a syndicate of gamblers did that. Refusing to do your best might be an acceptable labor action in some industries, but in sports it smacks of self-loathing, shows nothing but scorn to the fans and should never be accepted.

Originally Posted by Badfish

If baseball keeps guys like Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver out, so should Comiskey and Ban Johnson be left out as they both had prior knowledge of the events that transpired in 1919.

Comiskey and Johnson were not in on the fix. The only thing they could have done would have been to interrupt the Series and then investigate what was going on, which would have been rather unusual to say the least.

I don't want to see Rose or any of the Black Sox in the HOF. In both cases the integrity of baseball was undermined. Gambling is a dangerous activity and all sporting associations should always do their utmost to distance themselves as much as possible from it.

[Badfish]

I'm not saying those guys were right but cominsky ond johnson just civered things up it wasn't until 1921 that they tried to do aything and if it wasn't for johnson's hatred of Comminsky than it might have been handled like Hal Chase's case. those two tried to civer things up for $$ so how are they any better than the players.

[Brad Harris]

(1) The Hall of Fame has every right to rule that players on Baseball's ineligible list are also ineligible for election to the Hall of Fame. It is a good and sensible rule. I don't see how the Hall of Fame has anything to do with whether or not Jackson or Rose gets in at this point. Complaints about why hasn't the Hall of Fame done something are pointed in the wrong direction, IMO.


(2) People who argue that Jackson (or Rose) were not guilty of the actions for which they were banned are baseball's equivalent of those who don't believe the holocaust happened. They are both well established facts attacked only by those shackled by the chains of wishful thinking.

[Badfish]

I don't think you understand my point, Ban Johnson And Comminsky both were aware of what was taking place before the series started, Joe Jackson sopposedly tried to approach Comminsky on the subject but was turned away. Comminsky approached Johnson But both chose to ignore it for personal gain. If it weren't for a reporter chances are nothing would have been done, which was common place back then. Owners like having Gamblers there thinking it would increase intrest and thus increase revenues. My point is how can you bann the 8 player who were proven innocent by a jury of their peers only to banned from baseball for colusion, if colusion is the case than Johnson and Comminsky should aslo be out..

[Badfish]

First off the only reason Comminsky tried to keep things quite was becase of the money it cost him to aqquire those players i'm pretty sure he paid 65,000. for Jackson. As far as Jackson not say anything in the trial he was consulled by cominsky's lawyer as were Cicotte and the other guy i'm drawing a blank right now. Comminsky played thing perfectly he was in a win win sittuatioi, Jackson and Cicotte both thought Australian Cant remember the guys name but they thought he was their lawyer and they were misled by him and Comminsky. Brsides how could Jackson have written a connfession when he couldn't read what it said. In the off season of 1919 he mailed the white sox several times and even went to talk to commminsky about the 5000.00 he recieved and was told to keep it. how much of this true noone knows but in what i've read it seems to me that there was allot of funny stuff going on back then. just my opion dont take it personal. and as far as rose goes he should be banned that rule was inplace when he broke it it wasn;t when those guys did. it just seems to me that Johnson and Comminsky were more into screwing each other than they were into getting to the bottom of things.

[Skeeters Fan]

Originally Posted by Badfish

that rule was inplace when he broke it it wasn;t when those guys did.

Hey, hold on there just a minute. The 1877 Louisville Grays got caught taking a dive in the second-ever NL pennant race. 4 Grays were banned from the game. For life.

Selling ballgames wasn't some kind of neat marketing opportunity that got clamped down on; it obviously cheats the fans, who happen to be the customers of the product. There's no way in hell that any ballplayer who ever took the field didn't know that throwing games was forbidden.

Comiskey treated the White Sox very shabbily when he got the chance. But his involvement with baseball goes a lot deeper than 1919 or even being a team owner. His record as player/manager has a lot to do with his enshrinement in HOF.

Johnson has much less to answer for. Johnson brought in the American League with a much cleaner style of play than the National League had been featuring through the 1890s. The AL's success forced the senior circuit to crack down on onfield cheating and dirty tactics.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Hal Chase is on the permanently ineligible list. Try reading up on the subject. Just looking at the statistics hardly tells the story.

And, again, it is COMISKEY.

[Badfish]

Thanks for the info I knew about Comminsky's carreer but I wasn't aware of The gray's. If that rule ws inplace than why the announcment from Judge Landis and why wasn't anything done to Hal Chase. Belive me I don't think what was done was right but looking at the stats it seems to me Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson Didn't dump. As for Cicotte and Williams there is no doubt. Also if that rule was inplace than why did they wait ubtill the 20 season ws over and a writer brought out again before anything was done.

[Skeeters Fan]

The first allegations against Chase were made in 1908. In 1918 he was suspended by his manager, Christy Mathewson, for violating NL Rule 40 (calling for permanent disqualification of anyone fixing a game, or even offering to).

On Jan. 30, 1919, a hearing was held by NL President John Heydler. Several of Chase's accusers including Mathewson were unable to attend the hearing. Heydler felt that Chase was guilty but did not have enough evidence to do anything but acquit him at that time. But by late 1919 Heydler had the evidence he needed and banned Chase from the NL. Landis permanently banned Chase from baseball in 1921.

What happened in between 1908 and 1919 is pretty complicated. Chase wound up going from team to team, jumping to the International League and the Federal League at different times. Wherever he went he wound up being talked about. Chase was a very gifted player and it seems that there was always someone willing to take a chance on him (John McGraw gave testimony at the 1919 hearing and then signed Chase for the 1919 season).

[Badfish]

From what I've read while with thegaints he was accused of dumping by his manager the manager was fired and he became the manager

[Skeeters Fan]

In 1919, his only year with the Giants, Chase was benched towards the end of the season by McGraw, who apparently accused him of throwing games to the Cincinnati Reds.

Late in the 1910 season Chase's running feud with New York Highlanders manager George Stallings broke open. Stallings accused Chase of trying to throw a game and threatened to resign if Chase was not removed from the club; Chase threatened to leave the club if Stallings was not fired. (The Highlanders owners consisted of a notorious gambler and a crooked police comissioner). Chase won.

He became manager for the end of 1910 and for all of 1911. The team lost several places in the standings; Chase resigned as manager after 1911 but stayed on with NY AL (which became, of course, the Yankees) until early in the 1913 season.

[Bill Burgess]

If someone throws a game, thereby cheating the fans of an honest game, I agree that there should be no clemency.

1. In America, the principle is, "Innocent until proof of guilt, beyond a shadow of a down." That applies to criminal proceedings. Not civil.

2. Joe Jackson was party to 2 trials. The first was admittedly a farce. All 8 accused players were acquitted on lack of evidence after transcripts were stolen from the Chicago prosecutors office. Most have ever since suspected the Comiskey/Rothstein axis of the purloined papers.

The second 1922 trial, where Jackson sued the Chicago team of back pay for '21-22. The jury believed Jackson was not guilty of ANY wrong-doing in anything, including throwing a ball game, or anything else. The jury voted to award Jackson every penny of his back pay, but the judge decided to edit certain passages of the 1921 trial, while disregarding/ignoring all the other parts of the transcript, and over-turned the judgment of the 12 person jury, and imprisoned Jackson for about a day, on the grounds of perjury.

Charles Comiskey didn't have the stomach or backbone to have his ruined tatters of a reputation dragged through the mud yet again, and so he paid Joe Jackson his settlement to make his nightmare go away. The terms of the settlement were sealed to protect Commie. For him to admit he was paying Jackson off was too humiliating to make public the amount.

Jackson's incessant assertions during the trial that Commie knew from the onset what was going on, and made a fake, bogus offer of money to anyone who knew that a scandal happened was far too mortifying for Commie to face any longer. Comiskey could also not face the BB public and have to account for how he was in possession of the stolen transcripts. How mortifying!

All the parties are long dead. Most of the details are based on hearsay. Most here, including me, are unlikely to change our views. For the anti-Jackson faction to speak as if they know more than the pro-Jackson faction serves no purpose, and doesn't move us further down the road.

If the details of this issue were to ever be argued in an honest trial, there is no way that the burden of reasonable doubt could ever be overcome.

All the main points of the anti-Jackson group, have counter-arguments, which are credible and possible, regardless if one believes them.



It appears to me that the majority of anti-Jackson clique bases their main feelings on his first trial testimony. And that is as sad as it is untenable. The full transcript is so terribly twisted and deliberately self-contradicting that anyone who bases ANYTHING ON IT, is irresponsible.

Yes, Jackson does "confess" that he took money. Yes, he does claim that he "let down at the plate." But he also says that he never let up, always tried to win, and that he tried to take the money to give to his management. His testimony is so obviously under 2 separate influences that it simply can not be used to prove that he is "confessing". Those who post here, either an edited or unedited version of Jackson's testimony, as proof of his guilt, are themselves guilty of terrible judgment, and are as pathetic as Jackson's sad "confession". No confession of that kind could stand up in today's courts. Not with an attorney of any substance. Jackson went through that first trial without ANY legal representation, which right there invalidates the proceedings as any test of his innocence.

If you had to go through a trial without a lawyer, would you feel as if your fate had been fairly processed? Before Jackson testified, he had been put into a room with a man whose interests were opposite his own, and had the fear of God put into him. Worse, he trusted that man, Alfred Austrian. And his testimony horribly reflected that conversation, which was wholly inappropriate legally, and was a major conflict of interest.


Chancellor:
(2) "People who argue that Jackson (or Rose) were not guilty of the actions for which they were banned are baseball's equivalent of those who don't believe the holocaust happened. They are both well established facts attacked only by those shackled by the chains of wishful thinking."

(Bill - I agree with you on Rose. On Jackson, I'm just saddened that you feel this way. I suddenly feel like a pathetic idiot. (Just teasing.) There is just so much counter-argumentation on the other side. But oh well. I still admire your BB chops.)

Bill Burgess

[Schadenfreuder]

I know I might just be poiting out the obvious, but doesn't this thread read a little like some A&E American Justice transcript? Hell, even serial killers get a parole hearing...and, unlike Ty Cobb, Bill, Shoeless Joe didn't kill anybody. Sure, Charlie Manson has about as much of a shot as getting out of prison as I do of hitting 40 HR next year, but this is the Hall of Fame, and, by all accounts, Jackson was a helluva player. Charlie Hustle? A shameless schill...like if Robert Goulet had been hitting singles instead of recording them. Of course, all you ever see is sympathetic cinematic versions of "the great Shoeless Joe," but he can't be as big a slimeball as Pete Rose...and even if he was, Jackson should be in, just like Rose...after he dies.
Oh, and for the record, this won't hold up under the scrutiny of cross-examination...they are opinoins, after all.

[JACKIE42]

Originally Posted by HackWilson

Making it to the hall of fame should have to do with your ability to play baseball, thats it. Theese guys were involved in some shady stuff, but the amazing things they were doing were accomplished under their own power, without help from any kind of performance enhancing drugs.

They broke the law, they should have gone to jail, not the HOF.

[Bill Burgess]

Since Joe Jackson refused to attend the 2 hotel meetings where the conspiracy was discussed by the cheaters, I wish whenever he is brought up, others would use the word, "alleged cheater", in his case. There IS much difference of opinion in his case. Not the others, except Weaver, who got exiled for not ratting.

Bill Burgess

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by HackWilson

Also Babe Ruth drank during prohibition, while playing baseball, does that mean he belongs in jail and not the hall of fame?

It's not an either/or proposition. And, simply breaking the law is not against baseball's well-established rules. Orlando Cepeda and Fergie Jenkins both have drug convictions against them, but what they did is not against baseball's rules.
Gambling IS against baseball's rules, with the penalties clearly defined. That is the one activity anyone involved in baseball is not allowed to do.

[HDH]

My original point here is that Joe Jackson died December 5, 1951; long before most here were born. Who is being punished by Joe Jackson not being in the HOF? The fans? The HOF? Baseball as an institution? Would it be a potential loop-hole for Rose to sleeze in? Jackson was found guilty by whatever means and that can't be fixed now... and he paid for it.

[Bill Burgess]

HDH,

Technically, Joe Jackson was found not guilty by the only two trials he was ever involved with, concerning this subject.

He was "deemed" guilty, not by a legal judge, but by a baseball Commission.

He was judged by a jury of his peers to be entitiled to his two yrs. of backpay from his former employer, Commie, but the judge over-rode the carefully considered judgements of the 12 peers, and threw their legal verdict out his nearby window, and substituted his own personal opinion that Jackson was not entitled to the backpay, and threw Joe into the holding cell for the morining on the grounds of selective "perjury".

To this day, Joe Jackson STILL has not be found guilty by a legal jury.

Bill Burgess

I'd like to offer a view of the 1919 Black Sox scandal that may appear somewhat controversial, at first, but upon reading my material below, will seem less surprising. BB is a business. Owners see it that way. So do League presidents and Commissioners. Some owners also see it as the beautiful sport it is, like us fans.

I agree that seven White Sox players, excluding Jackson/Weaver, cheated and deserved whatever came their way. I have NO sympathy for them. But I would also like to submit the following below, to show the low-life character of Ban Johnson, who was the driving force in exposing the cheaters, and expelling them from BB.

It is my controversial view, that if the players had hypothetically been found to not have cheated, Ban Johnson would have continued to try to expel those players anyway. After all, Buck Weaver was known to NOT have conspired to do wrong, and was not separated into a benign category.

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. Read the following for yourselves. Keep your barf bags close by.



Ban Johnson put out this fantastic message at a press conference in Chicago, IL, Jan. 17, 1927;

"I don't believe Ty Cobb ever played a dishonest game in his life. If that is the exoneration he seeks, I gladly give it to him. But it is from Landis that Cobb should seek an explanation. The American League ousted Cobb, but it was Landis who broadcast the story of his mistakes.

I love Ty Cobb. I never knew a finer player. I don't think he's been a good manager, and I have had to strap him as a father straps an unruly boy. But I know Ty Cobb's not a crooked ball player. We let him go because he had written a peculiar letter about a betting deal that he couldn't explain and because I felt that he violated a position of trust.

Tris Speaker is a different type of fellow. For want of a better word I'd call Tris cute. He knows why he was forced out of the management of the Cleveland club. If he wants me to tell him I'll meet him in a court of law and tell the facts under oath.

The American League is a business. When our directors found two employees whom they didn't think were serving them right they had to let them go. Now isn't that enough? As long as I'm President of the American League neither one of them will manage or play on our teams."

"I have men working for me, on my personal payroll, whose business it is to report on the conduct of our ball players. We don't want players betting on horse races or ball games while they're playing. We don't want players willing to lay down to another team either for friendship or money. That's why I get these reports. 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.

"Judge Landis need not worry over the correctness of that interview. I made that statement then, I'm making it again, and I'll make it when he calls me Monday.

"I only hope he holds an open meeting. I want the public to know what the American League did and what Landis did.

"I sent a detective to watch the conduct of the Cleveland club two years ago. I learned from him by whom bets were made on horse races and ball games. I learned who was taking the money for the bets. I learned the names of the bookmakers who accepted the wagers and how much money was won or lost. I was gathering the evidence. Now, I watched Ty Cobb, too. I watched him not because I thought he was crooked, but because I thought he was a bad manager. Frequently, I have called him down. I gave Ty an interview just before he went on his hunting trip last Fall. He talked to me for two hours. He was heart-broken and maintained his innocence in that alleged betting deal which his letter tells about. I told him that whether guilty or not, he was through in the American League. I didn't think he played fair with his employers or with me. The actual facts which caused this whole explosion came to me early last Summer.

"Dutch Leonard had a claim against the Detroit Club. He threatened to sue for damages. He asserted that he had sworn statements of five men stating that Cobb had declared he would drive Leonard out of baseball. Ty always has been violent in his likes and dislikes. Those statements of his, if carried to court, would have been damaging to the Detroit Club. Frank Navin, the owner, also faced the possibility that, should he refuse to settle with Leonard, the latter would sell two letters, One, of course, was that one written by Cobb, and the other was that letter of Joe Wood.

"You know the contents. Both indicate knowledge on the part of the writers of a plan to bet on a framed ball game. Cob denies he bet, and I don't think he did. I say again I think Ty is honest. But as he couldn't explain the letter satisfactorily, it was a damaging document. So on that letter alone the American League would have been forced to let Cobb go. Now Speaker was implicated in the deal by statements by Leonard. I also have the data of my detective. I called a meeting of the directors of my league. My own illness and the pressure of their business delayed the meeting until Sept. 9, 1926. We met in a prominent Chicago club. We wanted secrecy, not because it meant anything to us but because we felt we should protect Cobb and Speaker as much as we could. They had done a lot for baseball. We had to let them out, but we saw no reason for bringing embarrassment upon their families. We wanted to be decent about it. The directors voted to turn the results of the Leonard investigation over to Landis. We did that in compliment to him, not to pass the buck. We had acted. We thought he ought to know about it.

When Landis released that testimony and those letters, I was amazed. I couldn't fathom his motive. The only thing I could see behind that move was a desire for personal publicity. I'll tell him that when I take the witness stand. The American League is a business. It is a semi-public business to be sure, and we try to keep faith with the public. Certainly we had the right to let two employees go if we felt that they had violated a trust.

But Landis had no right to release the Leonard charges. He had taken no part in the ousting of the two men. It was purely a league, not an inter-league matter, and there was nothing to be gained by telling the world that we felt Cobb and Speaker had made mistakes which made them unwelcome employees. When I take the stand Monday I may tell the whole story of my relationship with the Judge. If he wants to know when I lost faith in him I'll tell him this. When the Black Sox scandal broke the American League voted to prosecute the crooked players. Landis received the job. After several months had passed I asked him what he was doing, and he replied: 'Nothing'. I took the case away from him, prosecuted it with the funds of the American League and never asked him for help. I had decided he didn't want to cooperate. My second break with Landis came over a financial matter. I do not care to discuss it now, but I will tell about it Monday, if he wants me to. This statement of mine probably means a new fight with Landis. But he has chosen to make the public think the American League passed the buck to him on the Speaker and Cobb case. That's not true, and I don't intend to let the public keep on thinking that way."

Johnson also said that his observations of the Cleveland club showed that players as late as 1925 were continually betting on horse racing during the baseball season. One report, Johnson said, details the story of a pool by the players that netted a profit of $4,200. "We have no objections to players attending horse races," Johnson said. "We do object to them betting on races while they are supposed to be giving their best efforts to the baseball games." End of press conference. (New York Times, Jan. 18, 1927, pp. 18, "Johnson Accepts Landis Challenge")

[JACKIE42]

[Bill Burgess]

Not only couldn't Mr. Jackson read such a letter, being illiterate, he couldn't write either. His wife, Katie, had to serve as his translater, in such instances.

Mr. Landis, in circumstances, such as the one above, was merely being official. He had recieved repeated written requests from Mr. Buck Weaver, and never even once, CONSIDERED re-instating him.

Mr. Landis, always used as his shield, that anyone who had even sat in a meeting, where throwing was discussed, and not reported it to his management, would play ball again.

Using that definition, Mr. Jackson, who HAD NEVER DONE SUCH A THING, should have qualified for re-instatement. But as I said before, it was a political decision. All the cheats acknowledged that Mr. Jackson had NEVER sat in on their 2 hotel meetings, and it meant nothing. Mr. Jackson was sacrificed on the alter of appearances, by the 2 men who sacrificed the black men from BB. Mr. BAn Johnson was not called BAN for nothing.

Bill Burgess

[Imapotato]

How do you feel about Buck Weaver Kroxquo?

I am a part of clearbuck.com (Please join if you feel he is innocent everyone)
and I have also thought his banning was a terrible slight...it was easy for Landis to say "Turn in your teammates", when the fact was...would you sacrifice your life, your wife and children (Weaver would have been killed easily) for the sake of telling, and no one would have done anything to stop it anyway?