eight men out

[howard38]

http://www.chicagolawyermagazine.com...-just-aint-so/

I doubt this is new to you guys but I just came across it.

Howard

[Butch7999]

New to a few of us, at least -- thanks, Howard. Fascinating stuff.

"... experience teaches that once accepted, a certain perception of history is difficult, if not impossible, to correct." Sadly true. Asinof's version of events has become written in stone as some unassailably factual account, in spite of its largely fudged, semi-fictionalized nature. Shoeless Joe to the Hall!

[paul]

That's an interesting condemnation of the author of Eight Men Out. But it doesn't change the fact that Jackson and others admitted in court to taking money from gamblers to throw the World Series. Whether they actually played their best, double-crossing the gamblers, may be another matter.

The jury acquittals referenced in the article also mean nothing to me. For one, I've never been able to figure out what they were charged with. As far as I know, "throwing a game" was not a crime in 1919, and may not be a crime today. So, it may be that the jury concluded that this species of wrongdoing just didn't violate the laws that they were charged with violating. More likely, the jury just didn't care. I have an original newspaper account of the acquittal. After the jury announced its verdict, the jurors carried Eddie Cicotte out of the courtroom on their shoulders. That should not instill confidence in anyone that the jurors were unbiased.

[grandslamcardscria]

Originally Posted by paul

That's an interesting condemnation of the author of Eight Men Out. But it doesn't change the fact that Jackson and others admitted in court to taking money from gamblers to throw the World Series. Whether they actually played their best, double-crossing the gamblers, may be another matter.

I was thinking the same thing. To me, Its kinda like Pete Rose only betting on his team to win.. Its an integrity issue, you cant just have a little integrity, its all or none in my book.

[FrankWakefield]

Hey there, Paul,

For the most part, the 8 were indicted for defrauding Shano Collins (John F. Collins at the end of the Indictment) out of $1784, which is how much more he'd have collected, I think, had the White Sox won the World Series in 1919. Collins was a clean Sox, one of them had to be named for the fraud.

Basically, anyone who is willing to discard their emotion and feelings should read The Fix Is in: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals (9780786400546): by Daniel E. Ginsburg. Then, they can make informed comments about Jackson's, Weaver's, and Rose's eligibility for the Hall. And they will easily be able to understand why these players should never get in (Pete should be allowed in for the day, any day he buys an admission ticket).


The Indictment and Bill of Particulars

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ictpartic.html

[ScottFandango]

the thing that some people dont get about ROSE:

even if he just bet ON his team, that is essentially betting AGAINST his team on the days he DIDNT PLACE A BET!

if he knew he had no money on his team that day, he may save his best pitchers or manage differently for when he HAD money on the line...

[SteveMitchell]

Thank you for the link to an excellent article!

Steve Mitchell