Rose requests to be reinstated

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by rats60

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker fixed a game. Why were they never banned? Why are they in the Hall of Fame? There were several other players who fixed games prior to the 1919 WS and were not banned until after the Black Sox scandal broke. Why were there no players banned for over 40 years?

John Mc Graw bet on his team to win the 1905 WS. It was public knowledge, but he was never punished. Why is he in the hof?

Betting on baseball wasn't a formal rule until 1926. One year if you bet on a baseball game, life if you bet on your team. Why did Landis need to make this rule if it existed prior to 1919?

It would be naive to argue that gambling on baseball did not exist prior to 1919, and baseball could be selective in enforcing its rules, but that is not the point. The issue was raised that the Black Sox were treated in some after-the- fact fashion; i.e., that what they did was somehow not against the rules and that it was arguably unfair to punish them, or at least Weaver, for conduct that had not been proscribed previously. That is simply untrue.

I assume you have read about the Louisville Grays scandal in 1877 and the banishments that followed for association with gamblers/fixing of games. Those banned players tried repeatedly to be reinstated over the years, and their pleas were always denied, so the message about baseball coming down seriously on fixers was commonly known. If you peruse “The Fix is In: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals” by Daniel Ginsburg, you’ll see a narrative of several gambling investigations from after the Louisville scandal through the first part of the 20th Century. In no case did the players ever challenge an accusation of fixing or gambling by claiming there was no rule against it. None defended by saying such conduct was not prohibited. They would claim that they did not do what was alleged, or, more accurately, that it could not be proved, but they did not argue that gambling on baseball and rigging of games was somehow ambiguous or acceptable behavior, or that someone guilty of same did not merit strong punishment. That issue had been decided long before, which is my point– the punishments doled out to Weaver et. al. were not unprecedented and were not without there being a “rule” against the activity they chose to undertake.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

It would be naive to argue that gambling on baseball did not exist prior to 1919, and baseball could be selective in enforcing its rules, but that is not the point. The issue was raised that the Black Sox were treated in some after-the- fact fashion; i.e., that what they did was somehow not against the rules and that it was arguably unfair to punish them, or at least Weaver, for conduct that had not been proscribed previously. That is simply untrue.

I assume you have read about the Louisville Grays scandal in 1877 and the banishments that followed for association with gamblers/fixing of games. Those banned players tried repeatedly to be reinstated over the years, and their pleas were always denied, so the message about baseball coming down seriously on fixers was commonly known. If you peruse “The Fix is In: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals” by Daniel Ginsburg, you’ll see a narrative of several gambling investigations from after the Louisville scandal through the first part of the 20th Century. In no case did the players ever challenge an accusation of fixing or gambling by claiming there was no rule against it. None defended by saying such conduct was not prohibited. They would claim that they did not do what was alleged, or, more accurately, that it could not be proved, but they did not argue that gambling on baseball and rigging of games was somehow ambiguous or acceptable behavior, or that someone guilty of same did not merit strong punishment. That issue had been decided long before, which is my point– the punishments doled out to Weaver et. al. were not unprecedented and were not without there being a “rule” against the activity they chose to undertake.

So instead of answering my questions, you change the subject. The fact is that there was no rule, otherwise, there would have be no need to hire Landis as commissoner. There would have been no need for Landis to make a rule against gambling in 1926.

The fact that McGraw publicly bet on his team without punishment, supports that. So does 40 plus years of looking the other way. Even after Landis was hired, an exception was made for Cobb.

The bottom line is that it was only public out cry after the 1919 WS that forced baseball to clean up what it had been ignoring for years. If not for that, some, if not all would never been banned.

[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.

[porkchops]

NO ... Never ...... Nuff Said

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you won't answer my questions, why should I answer yours? You owe me no answers? I guess that's because you can't admit that you are wrong.

[nolemmings]

Ah, rats, rats. Where's your answer for the rest of the board? Seems a little petty on your part to keep your vast knowledge from them. At least I made several attempts to answer your questions, and some who are not as thick as a brick might even think I did answer them, or at least offer an explanation. The question to you about the Ruth rookie is really straightforward. It's truly against the spirit of this forum, at least IMHO, to keep such vital information to yourself. An opportunity lost--very disappointing.