Quote:
Originally Posted by robw1959
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.
|
1. You are right but miss the point of you cant break a rule that doesnt exist. It is not a "ridiculous way" but a very technical way.
2. You are assuming that Jackson's conduct was throwing games of which that is very debatable.
3. No way Jackson has more responsibility than Rose. BC the World series was simply an exhibition game at that time and not nearly as prominent as it is seen now and the White Sox, who just won one in 1917, could have seen it simply as on the same level as the City Post Season series they had with the Cubs at the time.
4. This is the plain truth and my point you are attacking. There was no real consequences for the Black Sox prior to them taking their actions (not saying it is ok but simply pointing out historical fact), Rose knew what he was doing, knew the consequences, didnt care, did it anyway, and tried for decades to lie about it. AND yes he was a player and manager doing it.
Jackson, who IMO played to win and didnt throw a game...is not even close to Rose.
What about Jackson's extenuating circumstances...he couldn't read or write...how about that when it comes to his confession in 1920 and going in front of a grand jury without council...or talking with Gandil about making extra money with or with out you prior to the Series in 1919?