Let's hit on a couple of targeters... DudeDykstra- Dude, your tag is absolutely NAILS!!! KCK54- You are ABSOLUTELY right. All you "smokers" out there that think it's nothing to hit that 93mph breaker need to check yourselves. Juice makes you BIG, not QUICK. Snipes- I'm a St. Louis boy myself, and I have to ask; Looking back, when Mac hit that seven million foot dong in Florida, you think WITHOUT the "J", it goes TRACK? EVERYBODY knew Mac used andro which, at the time, was legal. Most forget his skinny ass hit 40 plus as a rookie. The Senate hearings were a SHOW!!! Gotta wonder how many signatures he tossed out to "our best" THAT day (Hey, Mac, no hard feelings...). The media was pissed they didn't get their nightly, when he copped "the past" line. The guy who FOREVER shunned his fame, was the bad guy. 500,000 potential minor "juicers" out there, and it's MAC'S fault? Hmmm, where are the doctors, coaches, trainers, ADs, parents and, oh yeah, KIDS THEMSELVES, when responsibility comes a-calling? I'll drop a sweetie on y'all. For those of you "younger,smarter...betters" out there, HOFer Fergie Jenkins has a weed bust in his past. Love the guy but, under your so-called "puritan" guidelines, he got to go, too!!! THINK, before you accuse...
I'll drop a sweetie on y'all. For those of you "younger,smarter...betters" out there, HOFer Fergie Jenkins has a weed bust in his past. Love the guy but, under your so-called "puritan" guidelines, he got to go, too!!! THINK, before you accuse... posted by wolfdad at 7:27 PM CST on February 28 Sorry wolfdad, but I gots ta disagree with you on this one. Weed is not a performance enhancer (if anything it slows ya down), so it's not the same thing as taking 'roids. It just isn't. And yes, I know it's illegal, but to me that means nothing at all when it comes to playing the game. If the HOF ever did start banning folks for weed smoking then IMHO they should take out everyone who ever had a drink the night before a game. Just one ex-weedhead's opinion.
One ex-weeder TO ANOTHER! Point taken, but I hope you got the general drift.
Those accused and not found guilty should go in without * on records. They didn't get caught and our opinions are just that..could be right could be wrong, without proof who are we to say...Rose...well we have plenty of less than morale upstanding players in the hall and baseball usuing this great player as an example is not right and he should be in the HOF. Which should be soley decided by ones performance and stats rather than the opinions of people...someone said I guess we all have our own opinion on this but we all know what opinions are like. We all have one. well I'd like to add that most of them stink
One ex-weeder TO ANOTHER! Point taken, but I hope you got the general drift. I did indeed and I'm gald this is a case where rational people can agree to disagree. It's always nicer that way I think.
gald? hmmm as I'se said before...shore wud bee nic if'n dis place cud figer out a way ta includ a speel cequer knina thingie. Corsin I cud alway learn ta speel, butt wha fun wud tat bee?
The character comparison that keeps being made (not just here) between Rose and Cobb (or Ruth, or Drunkard X or Tax Evader Y) is that none of the other guys threatened to ruin the integrity of the sport. Rose isn't banned because he did "bad" things, he's banned because his behavior was a threat to the foundation of the game. I'll buy the comparison to the steroidians, but not to jerks, philanderers, and the like. I can understand people shrugging if Rose actually got into the Hall (I wouldn't be one of them -- I would be outraged, but I could understand it if people were okay with it). What I can't understand is why people are so ADAMANT about making sure this guy GETS HONORED with a Hall of Fame plaque. Why are people actively yelling and fighting to give this guy the game's greatest honor? Why even bother to make an argument for him? I suspect that a majority of people who argue for Rose haven't read the Dowd Report. There's some pretty interesting stuff there that goes beyond the betting -- not relevant to Rose's eligibility standing, but if you knew that stuff you probably wouldn't have such a strong yen to see him get in.
I believe that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame....as soon as he & his lifetime ban expires. Comparison's to former rascals are not valid - gotta compare him to Shoeless Joe Jackson on this issue. Oldtime baseball folks might think that "it ain't cheatin' if you don't get caught", but I definitely think that it ain't cheating if there are not rules against it. That to me is the difference between McGuire & Palmiero.
Was wondering how long it would take to bring Jackson into the mix. Let's not forget that he tried to return the money he had received for attempting to arrange a fix, his stats for the series were through the roof including hitting .375 and no errors in 30 chances, and the grand jury failed to indict him. The only evidence against him was a signed confession that was misrepresented to him by the attorney provided by Mr. Comiskey himself, not a really trustworthy opinion for a po' Georgia boy to listen to, but Joe didn't know any better. The glorious first commisioner of our hallowed game decided to clean house and ban all eight in what can only be called the biggest power grab since....well since Landis required that he be named commisioner for life, or he wouldn't take the job.
his stats for the series were through the roof including hitting .375 and no errors in 30 chances "In the three games the White Sox planned to win, he hit .545. In the first four games they wanted to throw, Jackson hit .250 with zero RBI. In the fifth [fixed] game, Jackson went hitless until the Reds were ahead 5-0; it wasn't until the Reds were up 10-1 did Jackson hit a meaningless two-run double." "Fullerton asked pitcher Christy Mathewson to sit with him and judge whether certain plays were on the up and up. Both men were of the opinion that Jackson seemed to throw wide from the outfield as well as deliberately slow down to miss balls hit near him. Other suspicious fielding gaffes included Jackson playing too shallow on a game-winning high fly ball to left field that went over his head, allowing the Reds to score a run in the fourth game of the series. (Cincinnati won, 2-0.) Bear in mind that misplayed balls in the outfieldwhether due to getting a bad jump, falling down pursuing a fly ball, or losing it in the sunaren't counted as errors and wouldn't affect his 1.000 fielding percentage." (from this Hardball Times article, which also includes information supporting the theory that Jackson WASN'T in on the fix)
"Fullerton asked pitcher Christy Mathewson to sit with him and judge whether certain plays were on the up and up. Both men were of the opinion that Jackson seemed to throw wide from the outfield as well as deliberately slow down to miss balls hit near him. In the fifth inning of game 4 Jackson made a telling play from left field. With a Cincinnati player on second a single was hit to left field and fielded by Jackson. He then fired the ball towards home plate. Eyewitness accounts say that the ball was heading directly for home plate and would have resulted in an out had pitcher Eddie Cicotte, one of the ringleaders of the fix, not directly interfered with the throw. Because of Cicotte's actions a run scored. The White Sox would lose the game 2-0. The Official Scorer of the 1919 World Series, James C. Hamilton, testified under oath in a later civil trial between Jackson and Charles Comiskey that the throw was honest and that Cicotte jumped up, knocked it down and booted it for an error. Jackson, if indeed in on the fix, could easily have thrown off target. The fact that Cicotte took it upon himself to knock the ball down leads many to conclude that Cicotte knew Jackson was playing honest ball. Further supporting Jackson's innocence is the autobiography of Chick Gandil, another ringleader of the fix. He would admit to yelling at Cicotte to intercept the throw so that the run would score. Many believe that this play shows that both ringleaders of the fix knew Jackson to be playing honest ball and did not trust him to throw the games. (From Wikipedia.com entry for Joe Jackson)
I am going to meet the greatest umpire of all--and He knows I am innocent. Joe Jackson
Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a game, no player who sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a ballgame is discussed, and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball again. -- Kenesaw Mountain Landis Whether he actually compromised his play or not, Jackson certainly knew gamblers were aiming to fix the games, and certainly had been personnally approached about the fix, and certainly had received money to play a role in the fix. We don't give current athletes much slack for being unintelligent, but for some reason Jackson's lack of education has been romanticized in this story, and he has been painted as the poor victim who didn't know what he was doing. A hard line needs to be drawn on the issue of gambling, and unfortunately for Jackson he stands squarely on the wrong side of that line.
A hard line needs to be drawn on the issue of gambling, and unfortunately for Jackson he stands squarely on the wrong side of that line. /closes book And that, is that.
My solution to this issue is to just put me in the Hall of Fame and be done with it (not that would do anything of remote value but it would be really cool).
Regardless of the verdict of juries, Strange words to be coming from JUDGE Kenesaw Mountain Landis. And yes, I agree, Jackson knew of the fix. If anyone in the Reds Organization knew that Charlie Hustle was betting baseball and failed to report it, should he be banned from baseball? Jackson also knew that the owners at that time would bail out a star player, something which Jackson was, so he did ask for an appointment to discuss it with Comiskey. The meeting never happened, but Jackson DID inform the club of the reason for the meeting. Turns out ol' Charlie Comiskey realized that if it came out that Joe had talked to him about being approached about the fix, then he (Comiskey) would have also known about it. So, rather than go to bat for him, Comiskey had his lawyer tell him to admit to what had happened. Yes, we give current atheletes slack for being unintelligent, we do not give them slack for being over-paid, or for doing things that we are not allowed to do in our own lives. But, aside from looking slack-jawed at a Wonderlick score, I do not remember the last time an athlete was taken to task for being unintelligent. That is not to say that when an athlete ACTS stupid, we don't jump his case *grins*
If anyone in the Reds Organization knew that Charlie Hustle was betting baseball and failed to report it, should he be banned from baseball? I think so. The integrity of the game is on the line, so letting it slide is tantamount to accepting it. And those that accept players/managers/owners betting on baseball while being part of the sport are people that shouldn't be in the sport.
Strange words to be coming from Judge Kenesaw MOUNTAIN Landis. You may have put your em-FAS-is on the wrong si-LAB-bull. It sounds to me like you already know Landis well enough to know that he was willing to put himself above just about anything -- certainly above the verdict of simple common folk. You're right, though, it is funny. he did ask for an appointment to discuss it with Comiskey When was this meeting scheduled to happen? Your suggestion that Jackson was in need of some "bailing out" makes it sound like the meeting was set for AFTER the Series, and geared toward saving Jackson's skin, not preventing or blowing up the scheme. I think in Landis' eyes (and, I have to say, mine as well) that would not be sufficient cause to excuse Jackson. All I know about this meeting is the three sentences you wrote about it -- can you recommend a good source for that story? If anyone in the Reds Organization knew that Charlie Hustle was betting baseball and failed to report it, should he be banned from baseball? I agree with Grum on this one, and his brief argument is better than any one I could make. I do not remember the last time an athlete was taken to task for being unintelligent. I was, in fact, speaking of actions more than Wonderlick kind of stuff. On review, though, I guess if we are equating Jackson's "stupid" act to Rose's, then I guess the public is more forgiving of a lack of intelligence than I gave them credit for. /opens book, puts the tip of Grum's sinister mustache in it, slams book closed, grins
I still think Big Mac is the best home run hitter I've ever seen. Even as a rookie before all the drugs... he was hitting alot of moon shots. Jose Canseco was right though, take a superstar (B. Bonds) , who can "hit"....give him some juice and he becomes a legend!
One possibility is to do what the lawyer tells you. Especially when it's well within the realm of possibility that your boss can get you out of a given scrape, as had been common practice at the time. But the cat was out of the bag' by this time, and Austrian knew Comiskey knew about the fix. According to reporter Hugh Fullerton, Jackson went in before the series and asked to be benched and afterwards to return the $5,000. Jackson had knowledge that could potentially ruin Comiskey: that Comiskey knew about the fix and did has part to cover up. Jackson had now become a liability to Comiskey and needed to be discredited. (source: It's October! Let's Dig Up The Dead! by John Brattain November 01, 2005) Jackson apparently tried to see Comiskey twice, once before the series and again afterwards. I am not arguing that he was a saint. However, it does appear that he did everything other than blow the whistle to the press to bring what was going on to light. Remember, this was 1919-20, when 'what happens in the clubhouse, stays in the clubhouse' was still something that was sacrosanct. My argument is that Jackson's punishment was far more than his misstep warranted. Granted, Landis was appointed to clean up the game when it was in grave danger of becoming the next boxing or horse racing, overrun with racketeers and other unsavory types. Yes, he was the type to take justice into his own hands, regardless of the 'little people' on a jury. But, if either Jakson or Rose deserve to have their ban lifted? Give me Jackson in a heart beat.
Oops. I missed that article when Grum posted it, and I owe both of you an apology. Sorry about that. Here is what I would use (and have used) as an analogous storyline: a woman is driving along a highway on which the exits are few and far between. Two men in a much larger vehicle drive up beside her and shout suggestive and offensive comments at her. They then proceed to cut her off and slow down, then sidle up and meet her speed -- all the obvious aggressive acts that fall under highway harassment. Unsure of the motives of these men, the woman is unwilling to pull over in the hope they will pass, and she feels that calling 911 on her cell will fail to provide a response that is either swift or efficient. So, she decides to throw the pedal down, speeding quite excessively and weaving among other cars on the highway in an effort to get away from the men. Eventually a cop pulls her over and tickets her for speeding and reckless driving. Is it justified? She had several opportunties to address the situation using legal means, but felt that the course she took was the only reasonable one that ensured her safety. All of the people to whom I have posed this question have said the ticket was justified. By your story, Jackson, in effect, allowed the whole 'what happens in the clubhouse, stays in the clubhouse' notion trump the legal and justifiable response of letting the proper officials (the commissioner, the press, the police) know what was going on. I sympathize with Jackson's situation, and I'm not certain that, immersed in this scenario, I would have behaved any differently (not being so good with thinking on my feet myself), but Jackson DID have options, and he chose his path. And that path was not the right one -- in my opinion, in the opinion of baseball, and in the opinion of the law (that he wasn't convicted can not be seen as an exoneration of his behavior so much as a failure of evidence). Sorry for the delay in this response, but I gave this issue quite a bit of thought, and I concluded that, given the evidence you have provided, I am standing firm. HOWEVER: But, if either Jakson or Rose deserve to have their ban lifted? Give me Jackson in a heart beat. No question. I'm right with you there. Rose's case is totally without extenuating circumstances. Unlike Jackson, Rose sought out his own crime and deserves the punishment 100%.
