Rose requests to be reinstated

[nolemmings]

I owe you no answers to any of your questions. The banishment for throwing games was around for 40 years. It was not an eye-opening, unprecedented punishment, nor were the players at any time deluding themselves into thinking there would be no repercussions if they threw ballgames. That was the point throughout my exchange with Chris. If you don't get that, that's just too damn bad.

I will let others more familiar with specific player investigations or scandals speak to those, as I do not profess to be an expert on all things baseball gambling--apparently you are. I know that the Speaker-Cobb incident came to light after Landis was appointed, that both were released by their teams and retired shortly thereafter. It could not in any way be said that the Black Sox looked to that example as some sort of precedent that they could away with fixing their games or avoid banishment-- they would not have been aware of it or its fallout.

I would offer that Judge Landis’ edict in the early 20's may have clarified things, but that it again it had no impact on the what the Eight Men Out had done. Landis declared a one-year punishment for those who bet on other people’s baseball games, and a lifetime ban for those who bet on their own games in which they had a duty to perform. Of course the scandals of the past that had rocked public confidence centered on fixing games and deliberately losing. Landis made it clear that betting on any baseball was punishable for a year, and that betting even on your own team to win was worthy of lifetime banishment–perhaps those things had not been made clear before; again, I’m not the historian here. Either way and again, the penalty for fixing a game or series–deliberately losing– had been made known for years and was clear.

Speaking of not answering questions, why haven't you answered one put to you not only by me previously, but by others more recently; namely, what is Babe Ruth's rookie card? You expressly posted on the "Questionable HOF rookies" thread that the m101-4/5 Ruth was not his rookie card, but when challenged to identify what Ruth's rookie card should be, you fell silent, much as you did when I asked you the same question some time back. Having then identified yourself as a hobby-oldtimer and implying that you had this vast knowledge of how real collectors perceive the m101-4/5 rookie to be a fabrication of money-grubbing dealers in the late 90's, you failed to fortify the board's knowledge base by imparting your wisdom on the subject. Please tell us the Ruth Rookie card; I mean, how can we hope to grow and attain the proper level of understanding when we can't even get the Ruth rookie right? Share, pretty please.