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

[Mark17]

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

Arnold Rothstein was shot to death 9 years later.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Arnold Rothstein was shot to death 9 years later.

Yes, but that was unrelated (he didn’t pay his debts in a poker game he thought was rigged) and a number of mobsters he mentored held high positions in organized crime into the middle of the century.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by egri

Yes, but that was unrelated (he didn’t pay his debts in a poker game he thought was rigged) and a number of mobsters he mentored held high positions in organized crime into the middle of the century.

And if that is true, isn't that an ironic coincidence. He creates a gambling scandal to cheat others betting on the world series, and then he gets shot for refusing to pay off a gambling debt to someone he thinks cheated him. Got what he deserved it sounds like!!!

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

Jackson said this both in 1920 and 1924. In 1920 the attorney did not follow up and ask what he meant by "...brought it in my room and threw it down" and 1924 Jackson and Williams both basically claimed that Williams paid Jackson part of his (Williams) payoff bc Williams used Jackson's name in the meeting with the Gamblers...meeting Jackson never attended. Basically putting up the idea that Williams used Jackson's name to help sell the fix to gamblers then felt bad about it later. Who knows if this is true, maybe, but Jackson still knew about it per Gandil running it by him.

Several of the problems with Jackson's 1920 testimony could be laid to the fact that the attorney didnt follow up with proper questions after Jackson's responses...which might have helped Jackson's case but again the players interest was not at all in consideration...and this is probably one of the chief differences in the 2 testimonies as in 1924 Jackson was representing himself and had proper council and chances to clarify.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Jackson said this both in 1920 and 1924. In 1920 the attorney did not follow up and ask what he meant by "...brought it in my room and threw it down" and 1924 Jackson and Williams both basically claimed that Williams paid Jackson part of his (Williams) payoff bc Williams used Jackson's name in the meeting with the Gamblers...meeting Jackson never attended. Basically putting up the idea that Williams used Jackson's name to help sell the fix to gamblers then felt bad about it later. Who knows if this is true, maybe, but Jackson still knew about it per Gandil running it by him.

Several of the problems with Jackson's 1920 testimony could be laid to the fact that the attorney didnt follow up with proper questions after Jackson's responses...which might have helped Jackson's case but again the players interest was not at all in consideration...and this is probably one of the chief differences in the 2 testimonies as in 1924 Jackson was representing himself and had proper council and chances to clarify.

So true. Think about what would have happened had Jackson gone to the AL President, Ban Johnson, with the money and the story about the scandal instead of going to Comiskey. Chances are Jackson would be in the HOF today, but probably nowhere near as well known and as popular (and expensive) as his cards are today.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

So true. Think about what would have happened had Jackson gone to the AL President, Ban Johnson, with the money and the story about the scandal instead of going to Comiskey. Chances are Jackson would be in the HOF today, but probably nowhere near as well known and as popular (and expensive) as his cards are today.

Very true.

And to the point about his baseball cards (and really all the Black Sox cards bc lets be honest if the scandal never happened that 1915 Zeenut McMullin aint no $5k card)...

My first baseball collecting book was Robert Obojski's "Baseball Memorabilia" printed in 1991 and he has a mini section titled "Joe Jackson Reinstatement Unlikely Despite Petitions, So Cards Suffer"...this did not age well

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Very true.

And to the point about his baseball cards (and really all the Black Sox cards bc lets be honest if the scandal never happened that 1915 Zeenut McMullin aint no $5k card)...

My first baseball collecting book was Robert Obojski's "Baseball Memorabilia" printed in 1991 and he has a mini section titled "Joe Jackson Reinstatement Unlikely Despite Petitions, So Cards Suffer"...this did not age well

LOL

So very true.

Think about it like the Gretzky-T206 Wagner card, which up until this pandemic had previously been the most expensive baseball card ever sold. But that sale came before the Mastro trial and Bill Mastro's admission in front of an open court that it had been cut off a strip of T206 cards found back in the 80's I believe, which means PSA completely mis-graded the very first card they ever looked at. And instead of an "8" grade, it should have gotten no better than an "A". Well, I remember hearing some speculation on what that admission by Mastro would do to the value of that card. There was even some speculation that the card's current owner should go back to PSA and demand they make good on their guarantee and buy the card from them for what they had paid for it. But then I remember someone else saying they would never do that, and that PSA probably wouldn't pay out for it anyway. And not because PSA wouldn't stand behind their guarantee, but because the card had gone from simply being famous to having now become infamous, and in all likelihood was now worth even more than it was before. And oddly enough, I can't disagree. So it isn't just the ladies that apparently have a thing for the bad boys! LOL

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

[ThomasL]

I would say the pro-Jackson narrative is he knew about the fix and turned down the offer to participate and was given money by his friend Lefty Williams for using his name with gamblers without Jackson's permission...

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by G1911

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

There is also this...if you read the AP that "quotes" Jackson from the day he gave testimony in 1920 there are a lot of damning quotes attributed to Jackson telling how he threw games, which he does not say at all in his testimony where he says he played to win...there are two possible reasons for this:

1. The AP simply made it up/guessed at what Jackson was telling the grand jury...other words...totally fake news

2. Jackson did issue comments to the press/AP and he did say this in order for the underworld to read and not try to hurt/kill him for crossing them.

I firmly believe #1 but I know big JJ supporters that think it is #2

[Oscar_Stanage]

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

Again how he placed the bets does not matter as the rule is you cant bet on baseball period...a rule he fully knew...rules are rules

Landis original rule in 1927 was betting on a game "you were involved in", I believe was the wording, was a life time ban...the Reds/Rose was directly involved in the games he bet on...the "he never bet against the Reds" argument is irrelevant and a moot point

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

Anything related to homers is a much more important record.

At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Anything related to homers is a much more important record.

At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce.

Mmmmm, maybe! But not that easy and clear cut because you need base hits to get your average up there. Also, a homer isn't the only way to drive in runs. You can easily argue that a single or double with the bases loaded is more significant than a solo home run. Plus, how do the players most often get on base to score runs when someone does hit a multi-run homer? And don't forget there used to be a dead-ball era where few homers were hit at all, and up until 1931 a ball that landed in the outfield and then bounced over the fence also counted as a home run. Today that is just a double. MLB has done what they can to increase homers because modern fans seem to like the offense more than 1 - 0 pitching duels. Still, when you talk of offensive might in MLB, I don't think anyone would dare dispute the epitome of that to be someone who won the Triple Crown; most homers, most RBIs, AND highest batting average. And the last two of those Triple Crown items are going to definitely be dependent on hits (singles) to a very significant degree, either by that player trying to win the Triple Crown, or by his teammates.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Mmmmm, maybe! But not that easy and clear cut because you need base hits to get your average up there.

Which explains why Rose is 179th in career Avg...

Behind luminaries such as Manny Mota, Hal Morris, Rusty Greer etc.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Anything related to homers is a much more important record.

At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce.

I disagree. The homer records have been watered down due to the steroid era and cannot be viewed consistently over time. Rose's record is a real record and will be the benchmark for decades, maybe centuries.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

And he never bet against the Reds

Exactly how and why does that make a difference when the rule makes no such distinction?

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

so his performance was never compromised.

What is your basis for determining this? Did you examine whether his decisions and performance in games he bet on impacted performance in other games? If not, how can you make such a definitive proclamation?

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Exactly how and why does that make a difference when the rule makes no such distinction?


it makes a difference because the thing I care most about is the competitiveness of the games. if he bet against the reds, he would be throwing games on purpose or changing his play. If you bet on yourself you are still giving it 100% .

What is your basis for determining this? Did you examine whether his decisions and performance in games he bet on impacted performance in other games? If not, how can you make such a definitive proclamation?

I think it is generally accepted that he only bet on the reds. I know of no testimony or accusation that he bet against his team.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

I think it is generally accepted that he only bet on the reds. I know of no testimony or accusation that he bet against his team.

He broke baseball's #1 rule, and he was very well aware of it.

What you are saying is like: "Sure I was driving drunk, but what's the big deal? I didn't hit anybody..."

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

Wid,

Rose's record is included in the HOF, so his name is ackowledged. It is just that he is not eligible to be a formal HOF inductee and have his own plaque, etc.

And the major league Rule 21 about gambling is, I believe, required to be prominently displayed in all major league team locker rooms, or somewhere the players will easily see it. So Rose knew the rule and knew he was breaking it. And if he was such a gambling addict, why didn't he just bet on other sports, or at least teams he wasn't playing/managing on, or playing/managing against? And whether you think the rule fair or not, it is the rule, and makes obvious, logical sense.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by BobC

Wid,

Rose's record is included in the HOF, so his name is ackowledged. It is just that he is not eligible to be a formal HOF inductee and have his own plaque, etc.

And the major league Rule 21 about gambling is, I believe, required to be prominently displayed in all major league team locker rooms, or somewhere the players will easily see it. So Rose knew the rule and knew he was breaking it. And if he was such a gambling addict, why didn't he just bet on other sports, or at least teams he wasn't playing/managing on, or playing/managing against? And whether you think the rule fair or not, it is the rule, and makes obvious, logical sense.

The point of this thread, i thought, was to make an argument for Rose/Jackson to be in the Hall. So my argument is that his actions never affected the sanctity of the game because he always put in 100% attempt to win. I get that 'rules are rules' but we are not talking about Harold Baines, rather one of the greatest hitters of all time.

There are also signs for no pepper games written clearly on every wall in every stadium. not sure I ever saw anyone play pepper games but if I did , they would be breaking clear rules.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

The point of this thread, i thought, was to make an argument for Rose/Jackson to be in the Hall. So my argument is that his actions never affected the sanctity of the game because he always put in 100% attempt to win. I get that 'rules are rules' but we are not talking about Harold Baines, rather one of the greatest hitters of all time.

There are also signs for no pepper games written clearly on every wall in every stadium. not sure I ever saw anyone play pepper games but if I did , they would be breaking clear rules.

Wid,

Understand what you're saying, but in Rose's case he really doesn't has a leg to stand on as the rule was really clear. The problem with Rose's defense that he only bet on the Red's to win, while theoretically lending itself to the argument that he therefore wasn't doing anything to purposely lose games, is that there is no way to prove that. At least not that I'm aware of. The only way you could even begin to give him the benefit of the doubt is if you believe him 100% in that what he said about his betting patterns is true. But remember, he initially lied and kept denying he was betting on Red's games at all, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When he finally had to admit to the betting, that's when the story about him only having bet on the Red's to win came out. Why or how would anyone in their right mind be able to believe a word Rose said after the initial lies he kept swearing to for all those years? And the rule he broke had been in place since 1927, and said with absolutely no exceptions, the penalty was immediate and permanent suspension and ineligibility from having anything to do with MLB.

Now, with all the changes going on in professional sports here in the U.S., along with the loosening up of gambling laws and its legalization in more and more states, the major U.S. professional sports leagues all seem to be embracing sports gambling and trying to figure out how to partner up with the gambling industry, and of course get their cut of the pie as well. Given such changing thinking, I'm guessing MLB may at some point begin to rethink their rules on gambling as they may begin to look to restrictive and overly hypocritical. However, I doubt any of the major sports, especially baseball, will ever allow gambling by a player/manager on their own team, or on a team they are playing against. And for MLB, if they did finally revise their gambling rules, I think they would change the penalty so it wasn't always just permanent suspension and ineligibility. I would guess, depending on the facts and circumstances of each separate gambling transgression, they could maybe just suspend a player for a number of games or some specified period of time and/or fine them some specified amount, rather than always just invoking a permanent suspension

Because of Rose's past actions and lying, I've always figured he pissed off so many people that run MLB that as punishment, they'll never let him live to see the day he gets enshrined in Cooperstown. My guess is that after he finally passes away, they'll wait some period of time and then maybe change the rules to figure out a way to let him regain eligibility and allow him to then be posthumously inducted into the HOF. And I think at that point they'll also let Joe Jackson become eligible again and allow him to go into Cooperstown as well. Jackson's case for going into the HOF has always been stronger than Rose's, especially since the gambling rules keeping Rose out weren't even in effect when Jackson's transgressions occurred. Even so, always figured that MLB wasn't going to go back now and change the rules to let Jackson back in because if they did, they'd probably get lambasted by the pro-Rose people until they ended up letting him in as well. So I honestly think they'll both get in the HOF as inductees one day, just depends on how long Rose stays around.

And regarding the no pepper game rule, wasn't really aware of that myself, but that probably relates to MLB Rule 3.09. Did a little checking and sure enough, that rule was put on the books back in the 1920s, and the origin for it was directly because of the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Apparently back then, the players from both teams would often come out before games and talk and fraternize amongst themselves, and often play games of pepper together. After the gambling scandal, MLB was so afraid of the fans thinking the players from the two teams may be getting together before games to talk about fixing games or hooking up with gamblers , or whatever, they didn't want the fans to see the players or coaches from either of the two teams talking or fraternizing with each other, nor talking or fraternizing with any spectators or anyone in the stands, and then get the idea something was going on. The actual rule isn't that long and is as follows:

Rule 3.09: Players in uniform shall not address or mingle with spectators, nor sit in the stands before, during, or after a game. No manager, coach or player shall address any spectator before or during a game. Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.

And that is it, that is the entire rule. It doesn't actually say anything about the game of pepper not being allowed, it just means that players from both teams can't join in on a pepper game together. Also, the rule doesn't really state what the penalty is for an infraction, or who exactly is responsible for enforcing the rule. Since there is no mention of umpires in the rule, I would guess MLB was looking to them to police and enforce this. But if the intent of the rule was to remove the fan's perception of anyone talking to each other or to gamblers to possibly fix a game, why would the umpires be exempt from that suspicion? In fact, given that the umpires probably made way less than any of the players, managers or coaches, wouldn't it be cheaper (and therefore easier) for the gamblers to bribe the umpires to help throw a game, especially the umpire behind the plate calling balls and strikes? This is really a stupid rule. Aside from the obvious omission in regards to the umpires, why wouldn't the players from both teams simply talk to each other before or after games, prior to getting into their uniforms, or after the leave the ballpark? And why would people assume that players would only meet and talk to the gamblers right there at the ballpark? This rule is insane and absolutely ridiculous if it was truly intended to keep fans from thinking games were being fixed. And yet, it is actually still pretty much followed even today. Why else do you think you never see opposing players talking before a game starts? Unlike all the other major sports, why do you think you never see opposing teams shake hands or the losers congratulate the winners after a game, apparently because of this rule. Never really knew that before (nor really thought about it), but now it makes some sense.

However, I do know for a fact that this rule is not always enforced. In the early 2000's I used to go to Westport, Ct every Summer to audit a client, and the Controller there was a huge Yankees fan, and she loved it when I came out with my staff assistant to do the audit work. She'd tell the owners they needed to take us out at least one evening during our stay as entertainment, so this was her way of getting the company to pay for Yankee tickets so she could go to the game as well. LOL And of course, since the company was paying for it she would try to get the best seats she could. So this one evening we head out for the old Yankee stadium from Westport, and get there early so we make it by game time and don't get caught in traffic. Turns out she was able to get some great seats, 10th-11th row back from the field, 1st base side, right on the edge of the dugout closest to home plate. So we're like 30-35 feet from the field, right at the edge of the Yankee's dugout. So I'm in the aisle seat and we're getting close to game time, and all sudden we look up and there's then current NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg going down the aisle to his seat in the 1st right, literally right in front of us and next to the Yankee dugout. And then a minute or two later, Ex-NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani comes walking down the same aisle, right past me, and plops down next to Bloomberg in the first row. (Who would have expected to see those two guys sitting together at a Yankees game?) And almost immediately after Giuliani gets settled in his seat, I look and there's Joe Torre coming out of the dugout. Takes a step or two towards the railing, picks his right leg up and swings it over the railing and sort of half sits on it, and starts BSing with Bloomberg and Giuliani, a clear violation of MLB Rule 3.09!!!!!

Thinking back on it now, never did see an umpire come anywhere near where they were talking, even though they must have been gabbing for at least a good 10-15 minutes. I also seem to remember that there were several very large gentlemen, all wearing similar dark suits, with ties and matching sunglasses and earpieces, that were all sort of standing around the area where the two ex-mayors were sitting. They never sat down once during the entire game, and I swear I never saw a single drop of sweat on any of them, despite it being about 85 degrees (or more) in the shade for the whole game. They may have been the reason the umpires never dared to come by and say anything. LOL For the life of me, can't remember who the Yankees were playing, but all the while that Torre was gabbing with the two ex-mayors, about 5-10 feet behind him we got to watch A-Rod and Jeter warming up playing catch, which was kind of cool. Best part of the evening though was getting to experience, in person, the top of the 9th inning, Yanks in a slim lead, stadium sold out and packed to the rafters, and all of a sudden you start to hear the first few notes from Metallica's "Enter Sandman" coming out of the stadium's speakers...................

What followed, alone, was well worth the price of admission!

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by Wid_Conroy

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

And you know he never bet against his team, How? Who would believe anything that Rose say's now.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

There is also this...if you read the AP that "quotes" Jackson from the day he gave testimony in 1920 there are a lot of damning quotes attributed to Jackson telling how he threw games, which he does not say at all in his testimony where he says he played to win...there are two possible reasons for this:

1. The AP simply made it up/guessed at what Jackson was telling the grand jury...other words...totally fake news

2. Jackson did issue comments to the press/AP and he did say this in order for the underworld to read and not try to hurt/kill him for crossing them.

I firmly believe #1 but I know big JJ supporters that think it is #2

I would also think 1 is likeliest, the media has a very long history of completely making crap up, while Jackson was an unintelligent man who had no history of being media savvy in the least.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

Think about it, he didn't really double cross the fix. In his testimony from the later 1924 civil trial he said he took the money and went to tell Comiskey right AFTER the 1919 World Series had ended. So he waited till things played out and the gamblers got the result they wanted. Had he gone to Comiskey at the very beginning, he had no idea what he would say or do. For all he knew, Comiskey would have blown the whistle and stopped the series and put Williams and his family at risk from retribution by the gamblers. It seems that by waiting he may have actually been doing it to protect others, which is something that his naysayers never seem to take into consideration. Even though it seems clear that he was never directly involved with any of the gamblers himself, never meeting any of them in person apparently, he was likely made aware of the physical threats to others and had to consider that in his reaction to what was happening around him and what he would say and do as a result. In fact, given the uncertainty of knowing how the gamblers would react if their scheme was thwarted and their fix exposed, it isn't a huge stretch for Jackson to have possibly been worried that coming forth with what he knew could have potentially put his own family at risk also. So think about that, here's a guy who didn't go out and ask for any of this, and he gets stuck right in the middle of everything surrounded by a lot of complete a--holes on all sides of the situation, and he still is the only one to come forward to try and tell someone he thinks will know what the right thing to do is, all why possibly worrying that by doing so he could potentially be putting others, and his own family, at risk of physical harm. His biggest mistake from where I'm sitting was telling this all to Comiskey. Being the team's owner and literally a partner of all the other MLB owners, you would think Comiskey's having such a huge vested interest in baseball would have made him the perfect person for Jackson to go to and tell about all this. Unbeknownst to Jackson though, it turns out that Comiskey is probably the biggest a--hole of them all in this whole affair. And before anyone says that Jackson should have gone to someone else then, don't forget how player contracts were in those days. Comiskey basically owned Jackson's baseball rights for life. He couldn't have gone and have played for anyone else in the majors without Comiskey's permission.

So then to top it all off, Jackson gets screwed by Landis and the rest of MLB, who just want to make an example of him and the other Black Sox players so they can increase their control over all the players in MLB, and make themselves look good to the fans in supposedly trying to protect the integrity of the game. The MLB owners didn't care about the game's integrity though, they only cared about their pocketbooks and making sure the fans didn't stop coming to the games because they thought they were fixed. If they had really cared about the game's integrity, they would have immediately thrown Comiskey out of baseball. Jackson has to be sacrificed then because if they had made an exception for him because of his story, the focus would have likely jumped over to Comiskey and his part in all this. And that is about the only logical sense you can make out of all this. The owner's, and Landis, stuck together and protected themselves. This also goes to show how collusive and equally corrupt Landis may have been all along, going back to his involvement with the Federal League case years earlier and his seeming failure to act impartially, as was his duty, on behalf of the American public as a whole, and then the follow-up appointment a couple years later as MLB's first Commissioner, at a very lucrative salary. Of course no one would ever think of that as being some type of payoff by the MLB owners!?!?!?

The one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense though is that this info about Comiskey and what was going on eventually did come out, especially one would think when the susequent civil trial between Jackson and Comiskey took place in 1924. Yet there didn't seem to be any big uproar or questioning about it in among the fans or the public at large. Certainly nothing like the exposure and coverage the original Black Sox scandal and trial received. I guess a lot of that has to do with the lack of technology and the virtually instantaneous media coverage we have today, and the fact that back then a civil suite isn't going to have anywhere near the interest a case about the World Series would. Plus, I wouldn't have put it past MLB and the owners to use their wealth and connections to suppress, or at least control, what actually got out in the media and try to limit what and how many people heard anything, so it would all blow over as quickly as possible. Which it apparently did. So this again makes me question who really is guilty and who really is innocent in all this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

Think about it, he didn't really double cross the fix. In his testimony from the later 1924 civil trial he said he took the money and went to tell Comiskey right AFTER the 1919 World Series had ended. So he waited till things played out and the gamblers got the result they wanted. Had he gone to Comiskey at the very beginning, he had no idea what he would say or do. For all he knew, Comiskey would have blown the whistle and stopped the series and put Williams and his family at risk from retribution by the gamblers. It seems that by waiting he may have actually been doing it to protect others, which is something that his naysayers never seem to take into consideration. Even though it seems clear that he was never directly involved with any of the gamblers himself, never meeting any of them in person apparently, he was likely made aware of the physical threats to others and had to consider that in his reaction to what was happening around him and what he would say and do as a result. In fact, given the uncertainty of knowing how the gamblers would react if their scheme was thwarted and their fix exposed, it isn't a huge stretch for Jackson to have possibly been worried that coming forth with what he knew could have potentially put his own family at risk also. So think about that, here's a guy who didn't go out and ask for any of this, and he gets stuck right in the middle of everything surrounded by a lot of complete a--holes on all sides of the situation, and he still is the only one to come forward to try and tell someone he thinks will know what the right thing to do is, all why possibly worrying that by doing so he could potentially be putting others, and his own family, at risk of physical harm. His biggest mistake from where I'm sitting was telling this all to Comiskey. Being the team's owner and literally a partner of all the other MLB owners, you would think Comiskey's having such a huge vested interest in baseball would have made him the perfect person for Jackson to go to and tell about all this. Unbeknownst to Jackson though, it turns out that Comiskey is probably the biggest a--hole of them all in this whole affair. And before anyone says that Jackson should have gone to someone else then, don't forget how player contracts were in those days. Comiskey basically owned Jackson's baseball rights for life. He couldn't have gone and have played for anyone else in the majors without Comiskey's permission.

So then to top it all off, Jackson gets screwed by Landis and the rest of MLB, who just want to make an example of him and the other Black Sox players so they can increase their control over all the players in MLB, and make themselves look good to the fans in supposedly trying to protect the integrity of the game. The MLB owners didn't care about the game's integrity though, they only cared about their pocketbooks and making sure the fans didn't stop coming to the games because they thought they were fixed. If they had really cared about the game's integrity, they would have immediately thrown Comiskey out of baseball. Jackson has to be sacrificed then because if they had made an exception for him because of his story, the focus would have likely jumped over to Comiskey and his part in all this. And that is about the only logical sense you can make out of all this. The owner's, and Landis, stuck together and protected themselves. This also goes to show how collusive and equally corrupt Landis may have been all along, going back to his involvement with the Federal League case years earlier and his seeming failure to act impartially, as was his duty, on behalf of the American public as a whole, and then the follow-up appointment a couple years later as MLB's first Commissioner, at a very lucrative salary. Of course no one would ever think of that as being some type of payoff by the MLB owners!?!?!?

The one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense though is that this info about Comiskey and what was going on eventually did come out, especially one would think when the susequent civil trial between Jackson and Comiskey took place in 1924. Yet there didn't seem to be any big uproar or questioning about it in among the fans or the public at large. Certainly nothing like the exposure and coverage the original Black Sox scandal and trial received. I guess a lot of that has to do with the lack of technology and the virtually instantaneous media coverage we have today, and the fact that back then a civil suite isn't going to have anywhere near the interest a case about the World Series would. Plus, I wouldn't have put it past MLB and the owners to use their wealth and connections to suppress, or at least control, what actually got out in the media and try to limit what and how many people heard anything, so it would all blow over as quickly as possible. Which it apparently did. So this again makes me question who really is guilty and who really is innocent in all this.

If 1) Jackson took money to throw games, which I understand he admitted to in court and 2) then played to win as his average suggests he may have and he and his supporters say he did, I would think that is double crossing the gamblers. Taking money from people to do a thing he did not then do. If he was scared of them, as was being alleged, this is quite a bold move.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

If 1) Jackson took money to throw games, which I understand he admitted to in court and 2) then played to win as his average suggests he may have and he and his supporters say he did, I would think that is double crossing the gamblers. Taking money from people to do a thing he did not then do. If he was scared of them, as was being alleged, this is quite a bold move.

Well, the problem is no one knows for certain what exactly happened or was actually said. From what I remember hearing about the testimony given in the 1924 civil trial, Lefty Williams supposedly gave Jackson the money and told him that he (or maybe one of the other Black Sox players) had used Jackson's name in talking to the gamblers and selling them on the deal, and that he supposedly felt bad for doing that and so he gave Jackson $5,000 out of the money that he was given by the gamblers. So if that is the true version of what happened, Jackson never actually took or was directly given money by the gamblers. In which case he wouldn't have been double crossing them as he never really agreed to the fix with them to begin with. Plus, he waited till after the the World Series had ended and the actions of the other Black Sox players involved had been enough to throw the series so the gamblers were able to cash in on their bets. To my thinking, he would have only been able to double-cross them had he somehow stopped the White Sox from losing the series, which he didn't because he waited till after it was over to go to Comiskey and tell him what had happened. And as was supposedly told in testimony during the 1924 civil case, and apparently confirmed by Comiskey himself, Jackson brought the $5,000 that Williams had given him to Comiskey's office two days after the World Series had ended and asked Comiskey what he should do with it after telling him about the fix. To me that doesn't sound like Jackson had actually intended to keep the money, especially when it was supposedly testified to that Jackson had originally tried to give the money back to Williams, who apparently refused to accept it. And then after telling Comiskey about the fix and asking him what to do with the money, Comiskey apparently told Jackson to keep it and say nothing about it to anybody. And if all these previously described events actually occurred, that is most likely the main thing that got Jackson in trouble, listening to Comiskey and following his advice to keep the money. Supposedly Jackson spent the money on a sister's medical bills, so it doesn't sound like he and his wife personally enriched themselves. But because he ended up keeping it, that seems to be what most people end up hanging their hat on as the main reason he's so guilty and deserving of his permanent banishment from baseball.

The story is that Lefty Williams and his wife were supposedly threatened by the gamblers. I hadn't heard that Jackson was directly threatened, but given what was said about Williams and his family, I guess it could be construed to have applied to Jackson and his family as well. I'd also never heard about any of the other Black Sox players being physically threatened by the gamblers either, but don't know all the info out there. For all we know, Williams could have been making up the threats against him and his wife as a way to possibly coerce Jackson to go along with the fix and take the money. And Jackson not wanting his teammate or his teammate's family to be harmed, may have held onto the money, but waited till the series was over before telling Comiskey about the fix then. That way the gamblers got what they wanted and weren't double crossed. If I remember correctly, it was a best of nine World Series, and Chicago ended up losing it in eight games, apparently without Jackson having to do anything intentional to throw a game. Would be interesting had it gone to nine games and there was a chance that Chicago could have ended up winning. One wonders if in that case Jackson might have then purposely done something to help throw that last game to lose the series, and thereby help to protect Williams and his family from any harm at the hands of the gamblers. We'll never know though.