Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasL
There is a case for Joe Jackson to be had...Pete Rose there is not a case until he dies and then you can argue the technicality of what "lifetime ban " means.
Pete Rose knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was punishably by lifetime banishment and he did it anyway. The "he only bet on his team to win" does not matter at all as the rule is betting regardless and the use of this making it ok is idiotic on it's face as, if we assume it to be true. BC he didnt bet on the Reds to win every single game...so what is he as player/manager telling gamblers when he DOESN'T bet on his team to win...that is essential the same thing as betting against your team when you are laying bets regularly. And yes he was laying bets as a player not just as manager as he was a player/manager and could insert himself in the lineup at anytime so the argument "he didnt do it as a player..." is also out the window. I have zero sympathy for Rose and cant understand why anyone does.
Rose also signed off on his own punishment with Giamatti so there's that.
The Black Sox did not sign off on their own punishment, were found not guilty in court and in 1919 there was no expressly written rules against betting on games or throwing games for that matter. And were retroactively banned by a commissioner that didnt exist at the time of their alleged fixing. Jackson and the others were HOF eligible and Jackson even got some votes over the years.
Jackson's degree of guilt comes into play (same as Buck Weaver) and the debate of if all 8 (9 if you count Joe Gedeon) should have been handed the same banishment punishment.
There is no question of guilt with Rose..he is not comparable with Joe Jackson.
A better debate is should Hal Chase be in the HOF or Eddie Cicotte for that matter?
|
The argument that there was no law or baseball policy against taking bribes to throw games is a ridiculous way to excuse Jackson's conduct! Rose never threw a game and never would. Joe Jackson bears far more blame and greater consequences against himself than Pete Rose does simply because of his actions to undermine the game. Yes, they both did what they did for money, but Rose had an addiction besides having a monetary motive. As much as I hate to excuse a man's personal responsibility for his actions, those extenuating circumstances do foster some sympathy, at least in my opinion.