Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

It sounds like your argument is that everyone conspired against poor Joe Jackson. I don't buy that argument. Why would they do it? Wheres the evidence?

Joe Jackson lied over and over in statements to the press and in sworn testimony. He was charged with perjury and failed to show up for his court hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Facts.The charge was never pursued, probably because it wasn't worth going from Wisconsin to SC for a simple perjury charge. If he was truly innocent, why not show up and fight the charge?

Read the articles on the 1919 Black Sox on the SABR website, those are fair and based in facts unlike the 8 Men Out book and movie, both of which are filled with so many myths and lies, they are basically works of fiction.

The 8 Men Out book is horrible and a lot was made up, just like the movie, well saware of that. But a lot of the other things, like on SABR, are not 100% totally proven either. Why he didn't go back, I don't know either. But if had to guess, I would think maybe a lack of funds to fight Comiskey would have a lot to do with it. And everyone seems to just dismiss the idea that Jackson was possibly coached and told what to say and do in the initial trial. Comiskey was obviously looking out for himself first, and I can truly see him taking advantage of someone as naive and trusting as Jackson in all this. Plus, in everything I read, no one ever seems to bring up the fact that Jackson was basically Comiskey's indentured servant under MLB's old reserve clause, and he wouldn't be able to play in the majors if he went against what Comiskey and his attorneys were telling him to do. Still, you can put your your faith and trust in current articles, books, and SABR. I think I'd rather put my faith and trust in a jury of everyday people who sat through that trial and listened to Jackson in person, and could look him in the eyes as he recounted what had really happened. That jury heard about all the conflicting testimony that Jackson supposedly gave, and they also got to hear Comiskey, his high powered attorneys, and everyone else I'm guessing brought in to put down Jackson. And yet despite all that, the jury overwhelming found in favor of Jackson.

Now I wasn't there, you weren't there, and certainly no one from SABR was there. Yet why the total lack of faith in the findings of a jury, that was there, several years after Jackson's career and fame as an MLB player had ended, in a different state/city than he had played in, and that sat through all the evidence and testimony and still found for him, that to me is really and truly the biggest and only question I feel still needs to be answered by everyone so totally against Jackson................PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen Carney's stuff and feel he ignores the sway and influence Comiskey had over Jackson and his simple naive nature. I still feel he got caught in the middle by teammates who thrust him into this, and was quiet to protect them from career, and possible physical, harm. Everyone points to his admission of receiving $5K to seal his fate and determine his guilt, despite going to Comiskey with the money to potentially give it back now that he wasn't in fear of teammates or their wives being harmed since the series had ended, and yet Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it. Interesting how everyone automatically says yup, Jackson is 100% honest about the money he got, but we still think he was pretty much lying about everything else. Now just think how stupid that sounds, he's honest about the one thing that is the most incriminating and damaging to his case, so if there's anything you would expect him to lie about, it was him receiving the money. But no, he honestly tells about money, but all the naysayers still contend he lied about everything else!!!!!!!!!! Go figure.

This whole thing around Jackson stinks. Yet so many people just condemn him outright. Let me ask you a question. Put yourself in his shoes, and you have teammates and friends who come to you about throwing the WS series for money, and they need you in on it so the gamblers will pay them. And they tell you that by the way, you have to take what we give you so the gamblers don't think we're double crossing them. And then later on you hear one of your teammates, and possibly his wife as well, have their lives threatened by the gamblers. Oh, and there's no specific rule on MLB's books on what you are or aren't supposed to do in this situation. So, do you go running to Ban Johnson, the AL President, and tell him everything, only to find out your teammate and his wife are mysteriously found dead the day after the news hits the papers, and the rest of your teammates and friends get thrown off the team, never to play in the majors again and become your hated enemies for the rest of their lives, while the rest off MLB secretly brands you as a rat and shuns you forever after, or what?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

The 8 Men Out book is horrible and a lot was made up, just like the movie, well saware of that. But a lot of the other things, like on SABR, are not 100% totally proven either. Why he didn't go back, I don't know either. But if had to guess, I would think maybe a lack of funds to fight Comiskey would have a lot to do with it. And everyone seems to just dismiss the idea that Jackson was possibly coached and told what to say and do in the initial trial. Comiskey was obviously looking out for himself first, and I can truly see him taking advantage of someone as naive and trusting as Jackson in all this. Plus, in everything I read, no one ever seems to bring up the fact that Jackson was basically Comiskey's indentured servant under MLB's old reserve clause, and he wouldn't be able to play in the majors if he went against what Comiskey and his attorneys were telling him to do. Still, you can put your your faith and trust in current articles, books, and SABR. I think I'd rather put my faith and trust in a jury of everyday people who sat through that trial and listened to Jackson in person, and could look him in the eyes as he recounted what had really happened. That jury heard about all the conflicting testimony that Jackson supposedly gave, and they also got to hear Comiskey, his high powered attorneys, and everyone else I'm guessing brought in to put down Jackson. And yet despite all that, the jury overwhelming found in favor of Jackson.

Now I wasn't there, you weren't there, and certainly no one from SABR was there. Yet why the total lack of faith in the findings of a jury, that was there, several years after Jackson's career and fame as an MLB player had ended, in a different state/city than he had played in, and that sat through all the evidence and testimony and still found for him, that to me is really and truly the biggest and only question I feel still needs to be answered by everyone so totally against Jackson................PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen Carney's stuff and feel he ignores the sway and influence Comiskey had over Jackson and his simple naive nature. I still feel he got caught in the middle by teammates who thrust him into this, and was quiet to protect them from career, and possible physical, harm. Everyone points to his admission of receiving $5K to seal his fate and determine his guilt, despite going to Comiskey with the money to potentially give it back now that he wasn't in fear of teammates or their wives being harmed since the series had ended, and yet Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it. Interesting how everyone automatically says yup, Jackson is 100% honest about the money he got, but we still think he was pretty much lying about everything else. Now just think how stupid that sounds, he's honest about the one thing that is the most incriminating and damaging to his case, so if there's anything you would expect him to lie about, it was him receiving the money. But no, he honestly tells about money, but all the naysayers still contend he lied about everything else!!!!!!!!!! Go figure.

This whole thing around Jackson stinks. Yet so many people just condemn him outright. Let me ask you a question. Put yourself in his shoes, and you have teammates and friends who come to you about throwing the WS series for money, and they need you in on it so the gamblers will pay them. And they tell you that by the way, you have to take what we give you so the gamblers don't think we're double crossing them. And then later on you hear one of your teammates, and possibly his wife as well, have their lives threatened by the gamblers. Oh, and there's no specific rule on MLB's books on what you are or aren't supposed to do in this situation. So, do you go running to Ban Johnson, the AL President, and tell him everything, only to find out your teammate and his wife are mysteriously found dead the day after the news hits the papers, and the rest of your teammates and friends get thrown off the team, never to play in the majors again and become your hated enemies for the rest of their lives, while the rest off MLB secretly brands you as a rat and shuns you forever after, or what?

Trust a jury? Seriously? The same jury also found Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch and the rest not guilty. Do you think Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch, etc were innocent too?

You got facts mixed up. Jackson claims he tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but Comiskey wouldn't talk to him. Where did you get "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it"?

Johnson was not "100% honest about the money"" He lied over and over saying he was never offered money but finally had to admit it. Jackson claims he was never at any of the meetings but Cicotte says he was at at least one.

Jackson wasn't some dumb, trusting country bumpkin, AFAIK, 8 Men Out is the only book that shows him that way.

Please answer this question, Jackson was promised $20000 but was given only $5000, he complained he was double crossed. If he played to win, how was he double crossed?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Trust a jury? Seriously? The same jury also found Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch and the rest not guilty. Do you think Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch, etc were innocent too?

You got facts mixed up. Jackson claims he tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but Comiskey wouldn't talk to him. Where did you get "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it"?

Johnson was not "100% honest about the money"" He lied over and over saying he was never offered money but finally had to admit it. Jackson claims he was never at any of the meetings but Cicotte says he was at at least one.

Jackson wasn't some dumb, trusting country bumpkin, AFAIK, 8 Men Out is the only book that shows him that way.

Please answer this question, Jackson was promised $20000 but was given only $5000, he complained he was double crossed. If he played to win, how was he double crossed?

i could go ahead and debunk every comment/question you directed back at me, or point out how you misunderstood or misinterpreted what I was saying. But I'm not going to waste the time as you clearly feel he's as guilty as everyone else and deserves the exact same punishment.

I've never said he wasn't guilty to some extent, had always been entirely truthful about everything, or that he didn't deserve some punishment, just that maybe he deserved some different treatment given his specific, rather unique circumstances. You also never answered back to my query about possibly putting yourself in Jackson's 'position, but don't even bother responding now. The non-response told me everything I needed to know.

One final comment. I sincerely hope you did not mean the very first thing you said in your last post. Because if so, you've just insulted every person that has ever served on a jury and are now calling into question their honesty and integrity. I know I've served on a jury before, and i found your implied comment/question reprehensible!!!

Good evening.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

i could go ahead and debunk every comment/question you directed back at me, or point out how you misunderstood or misinterpreted what I was saying. But I'm not going to waste the time as you clearly feel he's as guilty as everyone else and deserves the exact same punishment.

I've never said he wasn't guilty to some extent, had always been entirely truthful about everything, or that he didn't deserve some punishment, just that maybe he deserved some different treatment given his specific, rather unique circumstances. You also never answered back to my query about possibly putting yourself in Jackson's 'position, but don't even bother responding now. The non-response told me everything I needed to know.

One final comment. I sincerely hope you did not mean the very first thing you said in your last post. Because if so, you've just insulted every person that has ever served on a jury and are now calling into question their honesty and integrity. I know I've served on a jury before, and i found your implied comment/question reprehensible!!!

Good evening.

Stop trying to play the victim. I've served Jury Duty too. Juries get verdicts wrong all the time, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony, etc. Not too mention the many verdicts that have been overturned using DNA. I mean it 100% that I don't trust juries, especially in celebrity trials, which this absolutely was.

I didn't answer your question because it was irrelevant to anthing. What would I do? Who cares? It just sounds like you're making excuses why Jackson lied.

You say "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up" and when I ask you where the quote came from, you get in a huff.

You say "I never said he wasn't guilty to some extent" a person is either guilty or not, he can't be a little guilty.

This is exactly why I said I didn't want to debate Joe Jackson fans.

[SyrNy1960]

As we all know, we don’t live in a perfect world. Not everything is black or white. And where “grey area” is often used to excuse and/or justify things.

Let me start by saying yes, Arod is not a good guy for many reasons; but definitely not for using, lying, and conducting himself the way he did about his PED use. I don’t give him any credit for finally admitting he used; he got caught and had no choice but to do so. I hear others say that it is what it is; it was that era and many players were doing it. Well, that doesn’t mean Arod had to do it. We all make choices in our lives, whether good or bad, and we deal with the consequences of those choices. Nobody forced Arod to use PED’s. I have followed him since 1996. I’m still pissed he used and I don’t think he should be in the Hall of Fame. Period!

However, that all changed for me once they let one in - Pudge Rodriguez. No hard evidence has definitively linked “Pudge” to steroids, but Jose Canseco said he personally injected him in “Juiced.” Canseco has a track record of being right on these things. Rodriguez also declined to say whether he tested positive for PED’s in 2003, saying “Only God knows” if he is on that list. I believe Jose Canseco 100% that he injected Pudge Rodriguez. And Pudge’s response definitely shows that. I believe everyone is smart enough to see things clearly; it just depends on whether or not they want to do so.

When Frank Thomas was asked if he used PED’s, his immediate response was direct and clear: NO! That should have been Pudge’s response too (even if it was a lie), but it wasn’t. Most likely, Pudge wasn’t going to put himself out there, just in case some evidence or proof shows up later on. He definitely played it safe and lost credibility when doing so. “Only God knows” – Really? That’s a ridiculous response…you know Pudge.

If Bonds, Clemens, or Otriz get in, then I definitely don’t see how you keep others out. Yeah, they kept Bonds and Clemens out for 10 years, and Ortiz may get in on his first or second year, but for Bonds and Clemens, it was new and fresh on everyone’s mind when they retired, as most of us lived through that era of PEDs. Over the past 10 years, people have softened up, most likely due to all of the conversations and points like you all have made about past players using, who are in the Hall of Fame.

Put an asterisk next to their names and call it a day.

Tony

[ClementeFanOh]

Hi Tony- First off, I appreciate your measured and thoughtful response. We
don't completely agree, but that's okay. Your reply was as agenda-free as
any in this thread, it was refreshing...

I think it's clear that HOF inclusion/exclusion is a volatile topic among fans.
The PED in/out debate is especially controversial as seen in the replies. I
have a suggestion about these PED players, a test if you will, regarding their
suitability for HOF. All the test requires is 30 seconds of time and the
honesty of the participant- not toward me or net54, but to the test taker
him/herself.

Here's the test. Imagine the names of the PED players who you feel have a
decent chance of election to the Hall. Rodriguez? Bonds? McGwire? Then,
scroll their names in your mind's eye and ask yourself this question- what is
the FIRST thing you think of when you consider each name? If the honest(!)
answer includes words like "PED", "steroids", "scandal", etc, then I'd
strongly suggest he does NOT belong.

Given the nature of this thread, I'm sure some naysayers will try to twist
it. They'll say it's not fair, or that they wish we could apply it to players who
are already in the Hall and not about to come out, et cetera. But for the
players who aren't in and are, in some form or fashion, knocking on the door
it's a heck of an exercise. Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's the first thing that comes to mind with me for Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro, but for some reason not for ARod. The first thing that comes to mind for Arod is what a colossal jerk he was, or at least became.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Stop trying to play the victim. I've served Jury Duty too. Juries get verdicts wrong all the time, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony, etc. Not too mention the many verdicts that have been overturned using DNA. I mean it 100% that I don't trust juries, especially in celebrity trials, which this absolutely was.

I didn't answer your question because it was irrelevant to anthing. What would I do? Who cares? It just sounds like you're making excuses why Jackson lied.

You say "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up" and when I ask you where the quote came from, you get in a huff.

You say "I never said he wasn't guilty to some extent" a person is either guilty or not, he can't be a little guilty.

This is exactly why I said I didn't want to debate Joe Jackson fans.

I said to not bother responding, but of course you couldn't understand and pay attention to that request either.

And the only one playing the victim seems to be you.

And of course, even though you weren't in the courtrooms to hear and see all of the testimony and evidence in each of those cases you referenced, you know as an incontrovertible fact those juries were all wrong. I am just floored when I hear of someone in today's world that has the audacity and gall to think they know more than an actual jury that is presented with all the pertinent facts and testimony, when all they really know is what they most likely read in the paper or saw on the news. You have shown an almost complete, if not total, lack of comprehension of any of the points I was trying to get across to you.

What you have demonstrated is a bigoted and biased attitude, and what appears to be an almost complete lack of any open mindedness, whatsoever. Quite frankly, those qualities would make someone the absolute worst candidate for ever being a jurist, ever! You seem to go by only your own pre-formed opinions, based on whatever information suits your needs and thinking, and totally disregard and discard any fact, evidence, or other factors that do not totally support your pre-formed opinions. You apparently only want to look at things as either black or white, but the world doesn't exist that way and instead has an infinite number of gray shades representing where most things in our lives actually exist, somewhere between the extremes.

As I said in my earlier post, and repeat it again, the fact that you completely disregarded my initial request to try putting yourself in Jackson's place told me everything I needed to know about how were, and that it was a total waste of my time to ever hope to have an intelligent conversation about Jackson's situation with you. And thank you for this subsequent response in your latest post explaining you didn't deign me worthy of an answer because YOU deemed the question irrelevant. Your response completely and overwhelmingly confirmed and validated my initial thinking and opinion of you. The circumstances and unusual occurrences in this case were unique to Jackson alone. And therefore, these unique positions and circumstances are the ONLY relevant things in looking at my reason for engaging with you to begin with, how Jackson's case should maybe have been viewed differently than those of the others, and possibly lead to some different, maybe lesser, degree of punishment.

Your refusal to respond shows you just believe what you want. You don't want to ever debate Jackson fans, because you've already decided you're always right and they're always wrong. There's an old saying about how when someone complains about everyone else (in this case Jackson fans) always not liking and agreeing with them, maybe they need to go look in the mirror because the problem after all isn't them, it's you!!!

Once more, don't bother responding, I've wasted way more time on this than you deserve, I'm just ignoring you from now on. Do yourself a favor though, and go look up the actual rule that was in place, including the prescribed punishment of instant and permanent banishment from MLB, at the time of Jackson's alleged transgression. I only refer to it as alleged because he technically was never found guilty of breaking any actual law. And the rule put in place by MLB a couple years later doesn't count, because you're not supposed to be able to be retroactively charged with something there was no law/rule on the books for at the time something originally occurred, at least not in today's thinking.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

I said to not bother responding, but of course you couldn't understand and pay attention to that request either.

And the only one playing the victim seems to be you.

And of course, even though you weren't in the courtrooms to hear and see all of the testimony and evidence in each of those cases you referenced, you know as an incontrovertible fact those juries were all wrong. I am just floored when I hear of someone in today's world that has the audacity and gall to think they know more than an actual jury that is presented with all the pertinent facts and testimony, when all they really know is what they most likely read in the paper or saw on the news. You have shown an almost complete, if not total, lack of comprehension of any of the points I was trying to get across to you.

What you have demonstrated is a bigoted and biased attitude, and what appears to be an almost complete lack of any open mindedness, whatsoever. Quite frankly, those qualities would make someone the absolute worst candidate for ever being a jurist, ever! You seem to go by only your own pre-formed opinions, based on whatever information suits your needs and thinking, and totally disregard and discard any fact, evidence, or other factors that do not totally support your pre-formed opinions. You apparently only want to look at things as either black or white, but the world doesn't exist that way and instead has an infinite number of gray shades representing where most things in our lives actually exist, somewhere between the extremes.

As I said in my earlier post, and repeat it again, the fact that you completely disregarded my initial request to try putting yourself in Jackson's place told me everything I needed to know about how were, and that it was a total waste of my time to ever hope to have an intelligent conversation about Jackson's situation with you. And thank you for this subsequent response in your latest post explaining you didn't deign me worthy of an answer because YOU deemed the question irrelevant. Your response completely and overwhelmingly confirmed and validated my initial thinking and opinion of you. The circumstances and unusual occurrences in this case were unique to Jackson alone. And therefore, these unique positions and circumstances are the ONLY relevant things in looking at my reason for engaging with you to begin with, how Jackson's case should maybe have been viewed differently than those of the others, and possibly lead to some different, maybe lesser, degree of punishment.

Your refusal to respond shows you just believe what you want. You don't want to ever debate Jackson fans, because you've already decided you're always right and they're always wrong. There's an old saying about how when someone complains about everyone else (in this case Jackson fans) always not liking and agreeing with them, maybe they need to go look in the mirror because the problem after all isn't them, it's you!!!

Once more, don't bother responding, I've wasted way more time on this than you deserve, I'm just ignoring you from now on. Do yourself a favor though, and go look up the actual rule that was in place, including the prescribed punishment of instant and permanent banishment from MLB, at the time of Jackson's alleged transgression. I only refer to it as alleged because he technically was never found guilty of breaking any actual law. And the rule put in place by MLB a couple years later doesn't count, because you're not supposed to be able to be retroactively charged with something there was no law/rule on the books for at the time something originally occurred, at least not in today's thinking.

That is some awesome deflection. When you don't know the facts, either make them up or insult the other person. You've done both, not masterfully, but at least you tried.

Sorry, you don't get to tell me when to respond or not respond.

Your question of "what would you do" is still irrelevant. If I say I would do exactly what Jackson did, would that make him any less guilty? Of course it wouldn't. If you feel he's innocent, why do you need to make excuses for him?

Why do you keep bringing up Jackson' not guilty verdict? The others were also found not guilty too and with some of the other 7 players, there is no doubt of their guilt. Juries get verdicts wrong. Period.

[SyrNy1960]

https://us.yahoo.com/news/end-line-b...140102319.html