buck weaver survey

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

I thought Id play a little what if just for fun. (If this has already been done on this board let me know).


Here is the setup:


Its 1922. Buck Weaver has been given a second trial on conspiracy in the 1919 world series. You are one of the jurors that have to determine whether he is guilty or innocent. I want to take a poll to see what the verdict would be from a jury of baseball fanatics like myself.


A simple guilty or not guilty will suffice. Remember this is 1922 so you know not a thing about Pete Rose or Barry Bonds or any other scandals that baseball has seen in the past 80 years. Also, you are not passing sentence (presumably Judge Landis will do that), ONLY determining if he is guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud in the 1919 World Series.


Hope this isn’t too complicated

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

NOT GUILTY!

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

Absolutely Not Guilty.
--

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Guilty.

The determination to be made, as set out, isn't what I WANT him to be, but what he is...

[Archive]

Posted By: Turner Engle

not guilty...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Not guilty on the conspiracy part...He did have knowledge of the conspiracy, but it seems there was a pretty wide pool of people that had knowledge of it and he did not take part in the throwing of the series. Did Ray Schalk have knowledge of the conspiracy? Being the catcher he had to know that Cicotte and Williams were throwing the games.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Somewhat guilty. He had to know exactly what was going on.

Schalk did too, but he tried his darndest to get his teammates to stop playing so poorly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Why would he need a second chance? Wasn't Weaver acquitted the first time?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

Not Guilty

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I don't think we will ever know precisely who knew what and when...It is impossible for me to believe that it was not apparent to the entire team who was tanking a play and who may have made a legitimate error. Professional baseball was VERY crooked at the time and I think the 1919 series is probably not the only series that was fixed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Jeff, I think we're supposed to pretend the first trial took place without Weaver and he was granted a separate trial as he asked for.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

not guilty.

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

sorry, yes this is after they were banned from baseball. I shoulda put that down. We're pretebding baseball gave him a seperate trial that were determine him being reinstated back in the game.

by the way my opinion: GUILTY

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan- baseball was crooked as far back as the 1860's.

There's a famous color lithograph, issued around 1866, that shows a baseball game in progress; and in the foreground, the artist depicts gamblers exchanging money and even smacking each other around.

For any artist to go to that trouble, baseball had to be really crooked.

At least today's ballplayers don't cheat!

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

GUILTY....
Think he took HGH too...

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

it's funny how some can defend cheaters who throw games for money but condenm cheaters for using drugs to win games.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

Guilty.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Not guilty.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy

NOT GUILTY!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I think when you consider that in a criminal context the standard is "beyond any reasonable doubt", I'd have to vote not necesssarily innocent but definitely not guilty.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

No need for a second trial, he was never convicted of anything by any court of law.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

Landis took to much power upon himself and the current commisioner is a weak bonesless POS that will do nothing.

I find it interesting that all these modern day players haven't been found guily in a court but yet are getting killed in the court of public opinion.

With the Black sox they were found not guilty in court but Landis took in upon himself to act.

I am sad to say i wish we had a Landis type commisioner today.

I agree that with the reasonable doubt issue and as such I would vote not guilty.

As stated MANY MANY knew about the fix. What about Schalk and Gleason.... They both stayed in baseball. I also wonder about the Reds players...


James G

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: anthony

not guilty of cheating but guilty of knowing...

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Not guilty, but Landis had to axe him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Not guilty of conspirarcy to throw a baseball game.

 

Guilty for not rating out his teammates...

[Archive]

Posted By: sean

bob,
we know he was found not guilty in court. This is a HYPOTHETICAL question

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Unlike Weaver, neither Gleason nor Schalk sat in on meetings with a representitve of the gamblers to discuss how much money would be paid and who would pay it.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Dennis said: "it's funny how some can defend cheaters who throw games for money but condenm cheaters for using drugs to win games."

I agree as to those members of the team who were actively part of the conspiracy that it is impossible for me to justify their actions. Joe Jackson took money to cheat. He may have breached his contract to cheat and he may have felt bad and given away the money later on, but he's still a crook as far as I am concerned and way worse than a juicer. At least the juicer is trying to play better.

As far as Weaver goes, I do not believe that he should have been banned, for two reasons:

1. There has never been a mandatory good samaritan principle in our jurisprudence (look at the last episode of Seinfeld--had to get that reference in there somewhere). Unless subpoenaed, you don't have a duty to step up and be a witness and you definitely do not have a duty to intervene to prevent someone else's crime. Yet this is exactly what Weaver was hit with.

2. Landis's actions were boostrapped--he made the rule, decided that what Weaver did violated the rule, and based on that banned him. Something does not sit right with me about Landis deciding that Weaver had a duty to narc when none had been stated before in baseball rules and then banning him for not following a rule that did not exist when Weaver acted.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: James Gallo

Boxingcardman

I agree as to those members of the team who were actively part of the conspiracy that it is impossible for me to justify their actions. Joe Jackson took money to cheat. He may have breached his contract to cheat and he may have felt bad and given away the money later on, but he's still a crook as far as I am concerned and way worse than a juicer. At least the juicer is trying to play better.


Was this really a serious statement. Do you think Bonds cares about playing better. All he wanted was to be in the spotlight and to get more money. I think that is the #1 motivation for damn near all the players that juiced.

So by taking something that was illegal in the US to use they enabled themselves to get an unfair advantage and were cheating.

To me that is six of one and half a dozen of another. The #1 motivation of both groups of players was money, cash, green backs.

If the Black Sox had a union anything like the union of today they would still be the white sox and we would be talking about how great they were.

Thankfully no one will ever talk about how Bonds was on so many great teams as he will finish his career without every winning the ultimate prize which IMO is a world series. Then again I don't know if bonds gives a crap about that.

James Gallo

Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.