[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

G1911,

Wasn't dissing you. And agree the comparison of cheating to win and cheating to lose a game is not a pure apples to apples comparison, but regardless of the severity of the infraction, rules are rules, and enforcing some rules retroactively while not enforcing others is just wrong.

And from a philosophical standpoint, does it really matter that much what the cheating was supposed to accomplish, to win or to lose? During the Black Sox scandal, the people who were White Sox fans and who bet on the Sox to win were probably pissed as hell when they found out their team may have thrown the world Series on purpose. But guess what, the Cincinnati Reds fans and those who bet against the White Sox, along with anyone else who hated the White Sox for whatever reasons, were probably happier than pigs in mud that they ended up winning. Now lets fast forward to the Astros a couple years ago and their cheating scandal. They actually involved more than just the players on the team in what they did. They had other people in the organization at different levels as part of this concerted effort also, so it went much deeper than the issues with the White Sox organization back in 1919. So when the Astros ended up winning, their fans and anybody who bet on them were happy. But, all the other teams, and all their fans and all those others that were betting against the Astros, were all very unhappy. So in both instances you end up with some people being happy, and some being very unhappy.

But in the case where the White Sox played to supposedly lose, it was mostly just their fans that were unhappy. Think about it, most professional sports fans are concerned with winning, not necessarily how they do it. Oh they may wish the other team tried their best to win, but in the end they're just happy to have won and tough sh#t if the other team's players were stupid enough to throw the game in their team's favor. So you end up with fans from one team being very unhappy, fans from another team being very happy, and most of the fans from the rest of the teams not being overly thrilled, but mostly disinterested because it didn't directly involve their team.

Now in the case of the Astros, obviously the majority of their fans are very happy they won. "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'", isn't that the old adage? But now you have not just the team they beat in the World Series, but also the teams they beat in the rest of the playoffs, as well as the teams they played and beat throughout the entire season, and all of those team's respective fans, who are pissed as hell at the Astros for what they did. So when I add up my scorecard, I actually think there would be more people upset and pissed off because of what the Astros did than what the White Sox did.

Personally, I think that Altuve and the rest of the group that were all found to be involved in this cheating scandal should have been immediately and permanently banned from baseball. You mentioned about some things that common sense should tell you is wrong and that players should be able to be banned for. Well I think what the Astros did should be one of those things. But guess what, the players basically got slaps on the wrist and immunity for agreeing to finally cooperate with the investigation. Meanwhile, managers, coaches and employees of the organization who knew or were directly involved in the cheating took the brunt of the punishment and lost jobs and faced suspensions. And the team lost some draft picks and paid a $5MM fine. That was basically it.

What the Astros did was far worse for baseball and negatively affected more of the people involved in baseball than what the White Sox did. Yet the players back then took the brunt of the blame and paid for it, while the players of today had virtually nothing done to them.

The reason I originally brought up the greenies and amphetamine use as a possible argument was because of the specifics of the rules involving PEDs and steroid uses and how there is an actual rule that says if you do this you are permanently banned. I may be wrong, but for what the Astros did I believe the rules put it at the discretion of the Commissioner to decide their punishment, and there is no specific automatic "permanent suspension" clause in that part of the rules.

So I still make my claim that either of these, the greenies or the Astros cheating, should be retroactively used to permanently ban involved parties that were known to break the rules, the same way they retroactively treated the Black Sox players. And if not, it just shows the total hypocrisy on the part of MLB. I even read or heard one place that Landis had said he was going to suspend the Black Sox players involved in the 1919 scandal, and if they ended up being found innocent in their criminal trial he would then reinstate them. Funny, at least Manfred kept his word to the players. Oh wait, had he not, he would have had the MLBPA up his arse. Too bad the players back in 1919 didn't have a union to help and protect them against the owners.

I understand the problem with my argument of going back on all the greenie users was that pretty much everyone in baseball was using the greenies, and so no one really cared. But back then in 1919, it wasn't like the Black Sox were the first ever players to get involved with gamblers and throw games either. They just became the sacrificial lambs so baseball owners could keep making their money, which is really all they truly cared about. I'm not saying the Black Sox were all clean and not deserving of punishment, but there are valid arguments that Weaver and Jackson were screwed, and that Comiskey was so involved in all of this that of all the people banned, he should have been the first. Instead, his fellow owners protected him and I don't think he really suffered any punishment for involvement in all this. Makes you wonder if the MLB owners didn't all have enough "dirt" on each other that they dared not throw one of their own under the bus, so instead take it on the players involved so as to make fans happy, and teach a lesson to the rest of the players to shut up and do as they were told. Even Rule #21 Landis eventually put on the books, in 1927 I think, involving Misconduct and Gambling was written in such a way as to explicitly not implicate Comiskey at all for his part of the 1919 scandal. But it does make sure to cover both Weaver and Jackson, at least for what they were alleged to have done. In the end, nothing has changed. It was all about the money back then, and it is all about the money today.

I don't agree. I think that retroactively enforcing arbitrary rules, or new rules and applying them to the past is unfair, but something that just elementary common sense or a single iota of awareness should tell someone is now and was then wrong, it doesn't much matter if there was a formal rule or not. If you are participating in the fixing of the biggest event in sports, whether it's taking payoffs (Jackson), trying to lose (Gandil, Cicotte, Williams and others) or ignoring or covering it up (Weaver), you should be aware that you may face punishment if caught, even if you manage to hide behind "well, no rule says...". It is basic common sense, and it is the case in every single other job in the world. If I am guilty of gross misconduct at my job, openly operating against the fundamental interests of my employer, guess who is getting fired regardless of whether or not there is some technical rule I broke? Common sense IS a general rule we apply every single day in most aspects of our lives.

From a philosophical standpoint, YES intent and context matter. Because rigging games makes Reds fans happy is not a good reason to dismiss rigging games. Philosophy is not about "how many people does this make happy?" but about what is right and wrong and the proper way to happiness. Let's use the Socratic argument of analogy to show the absurdity of the standard here. Murder makes the serial killer happy and the victim unhappy, while the victim getting away makes the victim happy and the serial killer unhappy. No rational moral philosophy says "some people like it and some don't, it's all the same then".

If you think the Astros should be banned for life, based on common sense, even though they did not commit an offense that is specifically bannable for life in the agreed upon rules, then why is the same not true for the Black Sox? You want to use a "common sense" standard (even though not many would say anyone who cheats to win should be banned for life) for the Astros, but argue it must be ignored for the White Sox. That is not reasonable. I think the Astros got off way too light and should have been actually punished, but what they did not is not as bad as rigging a World Series for a group gamblers. By no means.

I do not know how Comiskey "was involved in all of this" and should have been the first one banned. What games did he rig? What payoffs did he take from illegal gamblers and gangsters? If I have missed some evidence that Comiskey was the mastermind behind the rigging of the series and played everybody, I would love to see it. I presume we actually mean that the charge that Comiskey was cheap is true and justifies the rigging of games. If Jackson's $6,000 was not enough for him (reading his testimony, there's a place where he seems to say Comiskey's pay to him was actually fairly generous), he can quit his job. If I rigged a deal my company was working on because I think I am not paid enough, and threw it to a competitor who gave me a payoff, and I was caught, do you think that I would not be banned from ever working with my employers organization ever again? Obviously I would be fired immediately and never hired again, at best (and may well end up in court). Would it be okay philosophically for me to do this? No, if I think my employment situation is no longer profitable enough (obviously I did at one point, when I signed on the line), I quit my job.

Greenies were not a big deal in 1964. Retroactively punishing players is a bit weird for that. The rigging of the World Series was a gigantic deal in 1920, punishing the Black Sox was not enforcing some new standard onto the past. Nobody in 1920 considered this proper conduct. Taking money from someone to do a job, and then taking money from someone else to not do a job (Jackson) or covering that up (Weaver) has never been an acceptable, consequence-free action in the western world. I'm fairly confident there even WERE rules against rigging games. Actions have consequences, and those consequences are fair when context and a shred of common sense tell you what the consequence will be when you commit the action. Actively trying to screw your employer gets you fired. A reasonable argument can be made that Weaver should not have been banned, but this is not it.