Quote:
Originally Posted by arc2q
While a timeless debate, I don't see your side of it really. I think romanticism has clouded our judgement of what occurred.
I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly worded. What do we know now that Landis did not know in 1921? Likely nothing. Therefore Manfred has to respect that decision. Only if new, substantive evidence emerges that changes the fact that Jackson admitted under oath to accepting money from a person he knew to be paying him and his teammates to throw the World Series should baseball even consider re-looking at the case in its entirety.
Authoritative decisions like banning a player must be respected by future generations and future commissioners for the punishment to have merit and for the authority to be considered inviolable. You cannot rewrite history out of nostalgia. While it may have seemed harsh, the decision was final in Jackson's life and should remain so now unless new evidence emerges.
|
I see both sides and respect people's opinions but personally i feel like he should be in along with pete rose. Thatll never change but like you said itll always be a timeless debate.