Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks Phil,

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and there are a lot more layers and nuances to this than most want to think about and consider. I've heard all the arguments and stories before that everyone was bringing up in their posts, and wanted to take the time to maybe get some people to finally realize there may be other points of view and circumstances that they hadn't thought of or were aware of before. To some it will always be cut and dried as to Jackson's guilt, even though there was no rule in MLB against what he did. And remember, he admitted under oath to a grand jury to taking the gambler's money, but also testified he played his best and didn't through any games, which statistics tend to show was true. Why would he be honest and admit to one thing, and then lie about the other?

Admitting to taking money but lying about throwing games portrays himself in the best possible light so it definitely makes sense that he would be honest about taking the money (since I think there was evidence or other testimony to prove it so lying wouldn't have helped anyway) but he would then lie and say he always played his best and didn't help throw games. I'm not saying he did or didn't throw games, just that I can see why he would lie about it if he did.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Admitting to taking money but lying about throwing games portrays himself in the best possible light so it definitely makes sense that he would be honest about taking the money (since I think there was evidence or other testimony to prove it so lying wouldn't have helped anyway) but he would then lie and say he always played his best and didn't help throw games. I'm not saying he did or didn't throw games, just that I can see why he would lie about it if he did.

Jackson was the 2nd person to testify in front of the grand jury (Cicotte was first) and did so under the guidance and instruction of the White Sox/Comiskey's lawyer. There was really no other story out specifically about him to try to slant at the time he went up to testify. You could still be right in that he said what he did to make himself look better or seem better but dont think it was to correct a story or change a previous narrative.