Posted By:
warshawlawdirect knowledge.
Landis may have been a lot of things but his determination on the Black Sox issue is undertandable in light of certain legal principles. First, he appears to have treated all of the conspirators the same, which is consonant with how participants in a criminal conspiracy are treated (you are all guilty of murder regardless of who actually pulled the trigger). Whether they took money, actually threw the games, or merely agreed to do it, they were all sentenced the same. Second, Weaver and the others who stood by and were banned had direct knowledge of the fix because they were in on the conversations. No one is suggesting that Collins, Schalk or Comiskey were in the room when the cheats conspired and agreed; they had reason to suspect things but were not witnesses to the events. It is the difference between direct evidence ("I heard them say they were going to throw the Series") and hearsay ("I heard someone say that they said they were going to throw the Series"). I still think the judge got it wrong as far as banning the non-conspirator witnesses but I understand why he would key on the inaction of direct witnesses to the acts rather than those who heard about it second-hand. Also, whether or not Comiskey was a $hit, it is no excuse for what the players did. Just because I think my boss is an a-hole doesn't excuse my ripping off the cash receipts.
I did not state that Landis saved baseball; we all know Babe Ruth and the rabbit ball did that. What I did state is that Landis cracked down as hard on the Black Sox as he did because he felt a heavy sanction was necessary to save baseball. Nor did I state that he was fair, impartial or even right. What he did have was a good understanding of the public relations aspect of everything he did, which is why IMHO he made some of the decisions he made.