Quote:
Originally Posted by Misunderestimated
Joe Jackson was properly "banned for life" -- I used to think he was a semi-innocent dupe ("Shoeless Joe" from the movies)....but the learned SABR articles and books delving into the legal proceedings that followed the Black Sox scandal reveal him to worthy of the punishment he received.
Pete Rose was also correctly banned for life for violating MLB's "prime directive." Rose has not done anything that has convinced me otherwise. He has monetized his layers of denials and then his partial admissions and finally his alleged full admissions in books.... He still hasn't exactly done a full mea culpa. He just asserts that his achievements should "trump" the rules (sorry). Finally, even if we accept his current claim -- that he only bet on the Reds as a manager -- it's not as exonerating as one might think.
https://thegruelingtruth.com/basebal...reds-let-show/
Its also not entirely true:
https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/...ll-player-1986
Jackson is no longer alive so his ban no longer should apply if his HOF candidacy is otherwise worthy (it is)... We can talk about Eddie Cicotte too I guess.
Rose is still alive and as things now stand he should serve his lifetime ban and then we can talk about his career... Harsh, I guess but if If he gets in posthumously it would not be a tragedy like Ron Santo. |
If you check the actual Rule 21(d)(2), it says that whoever breaks the rule is "permanently ineligible" and not "banned for life". I believe there is a difference, and the way the HOF and MLB appear to interpret it is that it goes on forever. And since MLB wrote the rule, I would think their interpretation is the one to be followed, whether anyone else likes it or not. Not saying I agree or disagree, just what it is.