PDA

View Full Version : Senate Resolution to honor Shoeless Joe


XplodingScorbord
10-21-2005, 02:31 PM
This just in, sorry for the length, but whaddaya expect from politicians.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 21, 2005

Contact: Allison Dobson/ Maureen Knightly
(202) 224-3254


Harkin, DeMint Go to Bat For
Shoeless Joe Jackson


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) today sponsored a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Joseph Jefferson ‘Shoeless Joe’ Jackson should be appropriately honored for his outstanding baseball accomplishments.

“Baseball fans young and old all across the country know the story of Shoeless Joe and recognize him as a legend who gave his all to baseball. He was truly one of the greatest players of all time,” said Harkin. “Shoeless Joe's record as a star player on the baseball field is unquestionable. His efforts helped make baseball America's favorite past-time. It is long past due that Shoeless Joe be recognized for giving his all to the game.”

Joe Jackson batted .408 in his rookie year, a feat which has never been equaled. He has the third highest batting average of all time, behind only Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby. Over a 10-year period, he never hit below .300. His fielding skills in the outfield are also legendary. His glove was named “the place where triples go to die.” Babe Ruth once said of Shoeless Joe, “I copied Jackson’s style because I thought he was the greatest hitter I had ever seen, the greatest natural hitter I ever saw. He's the guy who made me a hitter.”

In 1920, "Shoeless Joe" and seven other members of the Chicago Black Sox were accused of accepting bribes to throw the 1919 World Series against Cincinnati Reds. A Chicago jury acquitted Shoeless Joe of any wrongdoing in the 1919 Chicago Black Sox World Series scandal. However, without any hearings or investigations Major League Baseball Commissioner Judge Kenesaw “Mountain” Landis proceeded to ban Shoeless Joe Jackson from playing baseball for the rest of his life.

After Harkin first sponsored a resolution in 1999, Baseball Commissioner Alan "Bud" Selig agreed to review the Shoeless Joe case to consider whether or not the baseball player can be reinstated to baseball thereby paving the way for Jackson's induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. However, it has been six years since that investigation began, with no resolution.

“Tomorrow, the Chicago White Sox will make their first appearance in the World Series since 1959,” said Harkin. “It was Shoeless Joe who led the White Sox to their last World Series Championship in 1917. I urge Commissioner Selig to step up to the plate and finally recognize Shoeless Joe for his outstanding accomplishments in baseball.”

The story of Shoeless Joe was portrayed in the movie "Field of Dreams," which was filmed primarily in Dyersville, Iowa. The movie has drawn many Iowans to embrace the story of Shoeless Joe.


RESOLUTION


Expressing the sense of the Senate that Joseph Jefferson ``Shoeless Joe'' Jackson should be appropriately honored for his outstanding baseball accomplishments.

Whereas Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson, a native of Greenville, South Carolina, and a local legend, began his professional career and received his nickname while playing baseball for the Greenville Spinners in 1908;

Whereas “Shoeless Joe” Jackson moved to the Philadelphia Athletics for his major league debut in 1908, to the Cleveland Naps in 1910, and to the Chicago White Sox in 1915;

Whereas “Shoeless Joe” Jackson’s accomplishments throughout his 13-year career in professional baseball were outstanding­he was 1 of only 7 Major League Baseball players to ever top the coveted mark of a .400 batting average for a season, and he earned a lifetime batting average of .356, the third highest of all time;

Whereas “Shoeless Joe” Jackson’s career record makes him 1 of our Nation’s top baseball players of all time;

Whereas in 1919, the infamous “Black Sox” scandal erupted when an employee of a New York gambler allegedly bribed 8 players of the Chicago White Sox, including Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson, to lose the first and second games of the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds;

Whereas in September 1920, a criminal court acquitted “Shoeless Joe” Jackson of the charge that he conspired to lose the 1919 World Series;

Whereas despite the acquittal, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, baseball’s first commissioner, banned “Shoeless Joe” Jackson from playing Major League Baseball for life without conducting any investigation of Jackson’s alleged activities, issuing a summary punishment that fell far short of due process standards;

Whereas the evidence shows that Jackson did not deliberately misplay during the 1919 World Series in an attempt to make his team lose the World Series;

Whereas during the 1919 World Series, Jackson’s play was outstanding­his batting average was .375 (the highest of any player from either team), he set a World Series record with 12 hits, he committed no errors, and he hit the only home run of the series;

Whereas because of his lifetime ban from Major League Baseball, “Shoeless Joe” Jackson has been excluded from consideration for admission to the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame;

Whereas “Shoeless Joe” Jackson died in 1951, after fully serving his lifetime ban from baseball, and 85 years have elapsed since the 1919 World Series scandal erupted;

Whereas Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig took an important first step toward restoring the reputation of “Shoeless Joe” Jackson by agreeing to investigate whether he was involved in a conspiracy to alter the outcome of the 1919 World Series and whether he should be eligible for inclusion in the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame;

Whereas it has been 6 years since Commissioner Selig initiated his investigation of “Shoeless Joe”, but there has been no resolution;

Whereas the Chicago White Sox are the 2005 American League Champions, and will compete in the World Series for the first time since 1959;

Whereas “Shoeless Joe” Jackson helped lead the Chicago White Sox to their last World Series Championship in 1917; and

Whereas it is appropriate for Major League Baseball to remove the taint upon the memory of “Shoeless Joe” Jackson and honor his outstanding baseball accomplishments: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson should be appropriately honored for his outstanding baseball accomplishments.

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2005, 02:33 PM
I'm sure Bud will give this all the weight it deserves.

gobears1987
10-21-2005, 02:36 PM
There is one positive side effect of ESPN claiming there is a curse. It means Shoeless Joe's name will be batted around, and this may lead to Selig getting pressure to put him in the hall.

I bet Selig complies here just because he's pissed off the Senate so much already.

Erik The Red
10-21-2005, 02:43 PM
There is one positive side effect of ESPN claiming there is a curse. It means Shoeless Joe's name will be batted around, and this may lead to Selig getting pressure to put him in the hall.

I bet Selig complies here just because he's pissed off the Senate so much already.
If they put him in, they'll have to put in a few of the other banned players as well. I'm sorry to say it, but the evidence shows that he did all of his hitting when they were either A) out of it, or B) during games that were not fixed.

Dan Mega
10-21-2005, 03:35 PM
http://www.theheckler.com/public/spec/upload/05-09-28-FitzSimons.579.bmp

"Ok Selig, how much will it take to get Sosa in the hall of fame? Cubbie blue deserves instant induction!"

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2005, 03:42 PM
If they put him in, they'll have to put in a few of the other banned players as well. I'm sorry to say it, but the evidence shows that he did all of his hitting when they were either A) out of it, or B) during games that were not fixed.You can argue whether he hit or didn't hit until the cows come home. It doesn't matter. He took the money. Sorry, Joe.

JackParkman
10-21-2005, 03:46 PM
If they put him in, they'll have to put in a few of the other banned players as well. I'm sorry to say it, but the evidence shows that he did all of his hitting when they were either A) out of it, or B) during games that were not fixed.

Yep. Hate to say it, but Shoeless Joe undoubtedly was in on the fix and deserved to be banned from the league. That said, maybe it's time to forgive just a little and let him in the Hall.

ChiSoxRowand
10-21-2005, 03:48 PM
I don't think Jackson should be in the hall, he took the money. But if they ever let Pete Rose in, Jackson should get in.

The Dude
10-21-2005, 03:57 PM
I personally think it would be sweet as hell to have us win the World Series and in the offseason to have Selig clear this up so we could have another member in the hall. I think it'd be great to have a Jackson statue at the cell.

fox2
10-21-2005, 03:58 PM
I have problems with exonerating Jackson. He may have come from the sticks, but I think he knew what he was doing. Buck Weaver, however, is another story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-051019downey,1,7536464.column

StockdaleForVeep
10-21-2005, 04:04 PM
This is due to the sox exposure but theyve been tryin to do this for years. It is slightly a shame it takes national exposure to finally get him the recognition all true baseball fans knew

TaylorStSox
10-21-2005, 04:11 PM
I have problems with exonerating Jackson. He may have come from the sticks, but I think he knew what he was doing. Buck Weaver, however, is another story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-051019downey,1,7536464.column


Agreed completely. IMO if you cheat, you're out. Joe Jackson cheated. We can't have double standards. The same should apply to everyone in the steroid scandal. From what I understand, Weaver was the one that really got screwed.

Sorry Joe. You're a cheater.

Rose may be a different story. While he bet on baseball, there's no evidence that he cheated. Joe Jackson was paid to throw baseball games and may have caused the city of Chicago and The White Sox a World Series. I don't understand where all the sympathy comes from. There's no doubt in my mind that the Black Sox scandal cost us for years. It ruined the perception of the White Sox among non-Sox baseball fans.

asindc
10-21-2005, 04:40 PM
Agreed completely. IMO if you cheat, you're out. Joe Jackson cheated. We can't have double standards. The same should apply to everyone in the steroid scandal. From what I understand, Weaver was the one that really got screwed.

Sorry Joe. You're a cheater.

Rose may be a different story. While he bet on baseball, there's no evidence that he cheated. Joe Jackson was paid to throw baseball games and may have caused the city of Chicago and The White Sox a World Series. I don't understand where all the sympathy comes from. There's no doubt in my mind that the Black Sox scandal cost us for years. It ruined the perception of the White Sox among non-Sox baseball fans.

I thought there was some dispute about Shoeless actually taking any money. I don't know for sure, but that's what I had understood. If he took no money, then I say reinstating him is a good thing, since he did play very well in the Series. If he took money, then as much as I hate to say it, no way.

TaylorStSox
10-21-2005, 04:44 PM
I believe he testified to receiving $5,000. Torn or one of the other Sox historians would know.

The_Floridian
10-21-2005, 04:54 PM
I have problems with exonerating Jackson. He may have come from the sticks, but I think he knew what he was doing. Buck Weaver, however, is another story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-051019downey,1,7536464.column

Glad you pointed this out. Weaver, more than any of the others (Jackson included), deserves to have his name cleared. He took no money, played his heart out, and was essentially tossed out with the others because he didn't rat out the rest of them. I don't know if that was honorable or stupid on his part, but I don't think it merits lifetime banishment.

Buck Weaver spent the rest of his life, right up to the day he died, trying to get his name cleared. Until Buck Weaver is re-instated, Jackson's name shouldn't even come up.

Ol' No. 2
10-21-2005, 05:01 PM
I believe he testified to receiving $5,000. Torn or one of the other Sox historians would know.From his grand jury testimony (http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjtestimony1920.pdf):

Q Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?
A They did.
Q How much did they pay?
A They promised me $20,000, and paid me five.

JackParkman
10-21-2005, 05:15 PM
The AP moved a pretty decent story about the Black Sox scandal this week. Here it is, sans link. If that's a problem moderators, feel free to remove it.Black Sox left a permanent stain on baseball
{By HAL BOCK}=
{AP Sports Writer}=
Now comes the real challenge for the AL champion Chicago White Sox, in a city still burdened by the legacy of another Sox team — one that permanently stained the tapestry of baseball in a scandal that left eight players banned from the sport, each of them involved in a conspiracy to fix the 1919 World Series.
These White Sox will have to go a long way to erase the memory of those Black Sox.
Just like this year, Chicago had the best team in the American League that season, a roster crammed with stars and a team two years removed from a World Series championship. They were also a very unhappy group of players.
The penurious practices of owner Charles Comiskey were legendary. He paid his players as little as possible, ordered them benched if they were approaching bonuses and generally left the team on the edge of revolt. Comiskey’s players were angry with the owner and easy targets for gamblers anxious for an edge, an opportunity to make a score.
A handful of unsavory characters headed by professional gamblers Arnold Rothstein and Joseph “Sport” Sullivan hatched the Black Sox plot, using former featherweight champion Abe Attell as their bag man. Their targets were some of the best players on Comiskey’s White Sox, including pitchers Eddie Cicotte and Lefty Williams and outfielder Shoeless Joe Jackson.
In a confession that was leaked by a grand jury but disappeared before the players went to trial, Cicotte described how the scheme fell into place during a meeting in his hotel room, four days before the start of the series against Cincinnati. Also in the meeting were the other conspirators: first baseman Chick Gandil, who apparently made the first contact with the gamblers; shortstop Swede Risberg; utility infielder Fred McMullin; outfielder Happy Felsch; third baseman Buck Weaver; Williams, and Jackson.
“Gandil was the master of ceremonies,” Cicotte said in the account printed in The New York Times on Sept. 29, 1920. “We talked about throwing the Series. Decided we could get away with it. We agreed to do it.”
Cicotte demanded a high price for his participation — $10,000 up front, cash in advance, which was delivered under his pillow the night before the opening game. On his mind was the mortgage on his farm.
“I paid it off with the crooked money,” he said.
Cicotte was the ace of the White Sox staff with 29 victories that season, one win short of a promised bonus that Comiskey prevented him from getting by depriving him of late-season starts. He would start the first game of the Series against the Reds, and when he hit leadoff man Morrie Rath in the back with his second pitch, it was a signal to the bettors.
The fix was on.
“I wasn’t putting a thing on the ball,” he said. “You could have read the trademark on it when I lobbed the ball up to the plate.”
The Reds knocked Cicotte out in a five-run fourth inning, en route to a 9-1 victory. On the Cincinnati bench, the players suspected something was up.
“I thought something funny was going on,” outfielder Edd Rousch said years later. “Rumors were flying all over the place.”
Chicago’s Game 2 starter was Williams, a 23-game winner that year. White Sox catcher Ray Schalk had heard the rumors and when Williams, a control artist, walked three batters in the fourth inning, the catcher knew something wasn’t right.
Williams walked six batters and crossed up his catcher repeatedly in the game won by the Reds 4-2. When it was over, Schalk confronted the pitcher under the stands and had to be restrained by teammates.
Now the rumors were really rampant. In the press box, writers such as Hugh Fullerton circled suspicious plays on his scorecard.
Chicago won Game 3 when Dickie Kerr, uninvolved in the fix, threw a three-hitter in a 3-0 victory. It should be noted that Gandil’s double drove in Jackson and Felsch with two of the White Sox runs.
Cicotte was back on the mound in Game 4, determined to be less obvious about his intentions. The game was scoreless in the fifth inning when he threw wild to first on one play and then cut off and fumbled a throw that might have caught a runner at the plate. The two errors by the best fielding pitcher in the American League gave the Reds two unearned runs in a 2-0 victory.
“I muffed the ball on purpose,” Cicotte said in his confession. “All the runs scored against me were due to my own deliberate errors. I did not try to win.”
With the White Sox trailing three games to one, Gandil delivered two envelopes to Williams, each containing $5,000. One for the pitcher, the other for Jackson. In Game 5, Williams lost again with Jackson and Felsch butchering plays in the outfield in a four-run sixth inning as the Reds won 5-0.
Now Cincinnati was leading the best-of-nine Series 4-1, but the White Sox players were growing annoyed with the uneven flow of payoffs by the gamblers. There was supposed to be a $20,000 drop on the morning of Game 6, but it never occurred, leaving the fixers angry. The White Sox were determined to get even.
Suddenly, the fix was off.
Kerr pitched Game 6 and Gandil singled home Weaver with the deciding run in the 10th inning as Chicago won 5-4. Cicotte started Game 7 and, for the first time in the Series, the White Sox ace delivered a victory, winning 4-1.
The two straight White Sox wins left the gamblers on edge. They decided to make sure Game 8 would go their way, and not with money. On the night before the game, Williams was confronted on his way back to his hotel after dinner. He was to lose Game 8, he was told. He was to make sure of that, or he might never pitch again.
Williams was shaken. And so, he made sure. He got just one out and was pummeled for four runs in the first inning in what was to become Cincinnati’s clinching 10-5 victory.
The Series was over. The White Sox had become the Black Sox, stained for eternity.
Within a year, a grand jury heard testimony about the shenanigans that had taken place in the 1919 World Series. In June 1921, the fixers were all found innocent in court, but not by baseball. Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, hired to clean up the game, barred the eight players for life.
As he left the courthouse after appearing as a witness, Joe Jackson encountered a youngster. According to the Chicago Herald and Examiner, the boy tugged at Jackson’s sleeve as he left the courthouse.
“Say it ain’t so, Joe,” the boy pleaded. “Say it ain’t so.”
But Cicotte’s words make it clear that it really was so.
“I never did anything I regretted so much in my life,” he said in his confession. “I would give anything in the world if I could undo my acts ... I played a crooked game and I have lost.”
So did the Black Sox.

Mickster
10-21-2005, 05:17 PM
Give the link. Remove the text. :o:

Goose
10-21-2005, 05:27 PM
I don't think Jackson should be in the hall, he took the money. But if they ever let Pete Rose in, Jackson should get in.

If they induct Bonds in, should they also induct Joe? My opinion is that Bonds cheated as well...

Hitmen77
10-21-2005, 06:32 PM
Wasn't Shoeless Joe's ban a "lifetime" ban. Since he's been dead for many decades, why is he still banned? Everyone involved in the scandal have are long dead and buried. Even almost all the fans who can even personally remember the scandal are gone. I say it's time to forgive Joe and recognize his incredible accomplishments. Seems like we find it easier to forgive people who commit other crimes alot easier than to forgive Shoeless Joe Jackson for what he did 9 decades ago.

It seems like the argument is even easier for Buck Weaver. Why should the league continue to punish a guy that died 5 decades ago? At this point, it seems like they're just punishing his elderly nieces and nephews who fondly remember him.

And if anyone who ever cheated should be banned for life and for eternity thereafter, then I say we should ban everyone who ever got caught using a corked bat, a spit ball, or steroids. (sorry Sammy, got you on 2 out of 3).

JackParkman
10-21-2005, 07:03 PM
Give the link. Remove the text. :o:

Can't do that. It's a wire story. As in, literally off the wire. Like I said, if the mods deem it a problem it should be removed.

TornLabrum
10-21-2005, 07:06 PM
You can argue whether he hit or didn't hit until the cows come home. It doesn't matter. He took the money. Sorry, Joe.

The money was thrown on his bed, and he tried to give it back to Comiskey. Comiskey refused to see him.

TornLabrum
10-21-2005, 07:11 PM
Wasn't Shoeless Joe's ban a "lifetime" ban. Since he's been dead for many decades, why is he still banned? Everyone involved in the scandal have are long dead and buried. Even almost all the fans who can even personally remember the scandal are gone. I say it's time to forgive Joe and recognize his incredible accomplishments. Seems like we find it easier to forgive people who commit other crimes alot easier than to forgive Shoeless Joe Jackson for what he did 9 decades ago.

It seems like the argument is even easier for Buck Weaver. Why should the league continue to punish a guy that died 5 decades ago? At this point, it seems like they're just punishing his elderly nieces and nephews who fondly remember him.

And if anyone who ever cheated should be banned for life and for eternity thereafter, then I say we should ban everyone who ever got caught using a corked bat, a spit ball, or steroids. (sorry Sammy, got you on 2 out of 3).

Jackson's classification is "permanently ineligible." That means "forever."

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2005, 07:28 PM
It's a good thing that racist Landis didn't make blacks "permanently ineligible" or we would still be obligated today to hold up his stupid ruling on that little matter, too.

:cool:

voodoochile
10-21-2005, 07:32 PM
It's a good thing that racist Landis didn't make blacks "permanently ineligible" or we would still be obligated today to hold up his stupid ruling on that little matter, too.

:cool:

Well, there is a little difference between the two rulings. I mean blacks cannot help being black, but people who take money to throw games always did and always will have a choice. I got no problem with keeping Joe out.

MarySwiss
10-21-2005, 07:38 PM
Glad you pointed this out. Weaver, more than any of the others (Jackson included), deserves to have his name cleared. He took no money, played his heart out, and was essentially tossed out with the others because he didn't rat out the rest of them. I don't know if that was honorable or stupid on his part, but I don't think it merits lifetime banishment.

Buck Weaver spent the rest of his life, right up to the day he died, trying to get his name cleared. Until Buck Weaver is re-instated, Jackson's name shouldn't even come up.

Agree. Weaver should be pardoned, no question. (Although I still think it's laughable, being "pardoned" for something you didn't do. "Exonorated" works better for me.)

But I think the reason that Jackson has become such a symbol is because of the whole Hall of Fame thing. If it is argued that McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Rose, Palmiero, etc., should be HOF candidates, then you have to argue Shoeless Joe's case.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2005, 07:51 PM
Well, there is a little difference between the two rulings. I mean blacks cannot help being black, but people who take money to throw games always did and always will have a choice. I got no problem with keeping Joe out.

Jackson tried to return the money and was refused because Comiskey didn't want to be culpable. Should we permanently ban Comiskey, too? He had guilty knowledge same as Buck Weaver, didn't he?

That Judge Landis sure was true paragon of jurisprudence, wasn't he?

:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2005, 07:51 PM
Well, there is a little difference between the two rulings. I mean blacks cannot help being black, but people who take money to throw games always did and always will have a choice. I got no problem with keeping Joe out.

Jackson tried to return the money and was refused because Comiskey didn't want to be culpable. Should we permanently ban Comiskey, too? He had guilty knowledge same as Buck Weaver, didn't he?

That Judge Landis sure was a true paragon of jurisprudence, wasn't he?

:cool:

voodoochile
10-21-2005, 07:57 PM
Jackson tried to return the money and was refused because Comiskey didn't want to be culpable. Should we permanently ban Comiskey, too? He had guilty knowledge same as Buck Weaver, didn't he?

That Judge Landis sure was true paragon of jurisprudence, wasn't he?

:cool:

You lay down with dogs...

Jackson got caught redhanded, period. I really don't care what he tried to do after he took the bribe. To me the key part of that sentence is "took the bribe".

Yep and ShamME* probably isn't doing steroids anymore. Should we go ahead and vote him into the HOF? ShamME* probably will get there, unfortunately, but I can't believe you think he SHOULD get there and honestly speaking and no teal intended, I'd rather have ShamME* than Joe in the Hall.

People who damage the integrity of the sport by fixing the results or taking money to fix results deserve to get smacked down hard. I have always felt that way and I always will. I understand the desire to get ahead by cheating even if I don't agree with it, but play to win always or you deserve to be treated like something the cat dragged in...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2005, 08:09 PM
You lay down with dogs...

Jackson got caught redhanded, period. I really don't care what he tried to do after he took the bribe. To me the key part of that sentence is "took the bribe".

Yep and ShamME* probably isn't doing steroids anymore. Should we go ahead and vote him into the HOF? ShamME* probably will get there, unfortunately, but I can't believe you think he SHOULD get there and honestly speaking and no teal intended, I'd rather have ShamME* than Joe in the Hall.

People who damage the integrity of the sport by fixing the results or taking money to fix results deserve to get smacked down hard. I have always felt that way and I always will. I understand the desire to get ahead by cheating even if I don't agree with it, but play to win always or you deserve to be treated like something the cat dragged in...

Voodoo, what does the word "acquitted" mean to you?
:?:

The only person who caught Joe Jackson "red-handed" was the racist Kennesaw Mountain Landis. And as Bill Veeck once noted, he wasn't named Kennesaw Mountain because he came from Maine.

voodoochile
10-21-2005, 10:37 PM
Voodoo, what does the word "acquitted" mean to you?
:?:

The only person who caught Joe Jackson "red-handed" was the racist Kennesaw Mountain Landis. And as Bill Veeck once noted, he wasn't named Kennesaw Mountain because he came from Maine.

What do the words "Grand Jury Testimony" mean to you?

Joe admitted he took money to fix the series.

This isn't a court of law. My burden of proof begings and ends with the mans own testimony.

You can take it deeper than that if you want to but to me when someone says, "yes, I took the bribe." It's over for me.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I say keep everyone who ever gambled on the game or took money to fix the game out of the HOF. Ban 'em for life and let those with a higher knowledge (if they actually exist) worry about the rest.

TornLabrum
10-21-2005, 10:44 PM
What do the words "Grand Jury Testimony" mean to you?

Joe admitted he took money to fix the series.

This isn't a court of law. My burden of proof begings and ends with the mans own testimony.

You can take it deeper than that if you want to but to me when someone says, "yes, I took the bribe." It's over for me.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I say keep everyone who ever gambled on the game or took money to fix the game out of the HOF. Ban 'em for life and let those with a higher knowledge (if they actually exist) worry about the rest.

Jackson was "represented" by Comiskey's lawyer who advised him to confess to the grand jury. What does the word "misrepresentation" mean to you? Or for that matter, "unethical"?

Albert Austrian, the lawyer, didn't bother to tell Jackson that he was representing only Comiskey. The advice for Jackson to confess put the onus solely on the players and distanced his real client from anything to do with the scandal. Read the entire testimony. There are statements in it that completely contradict his so-called confession.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2005, 11:11 PM
Jackson was "represented" by Comiskey's lawyer who advised him to confess to the grand jury. What does the word "misrepresentation" mean to you? Or for that matter, "unethical"?

Albert Austrian, the lawyer, didn't bother to tell Jackson that he was representing only Comiskey. The advice for Jackson to confess put the onus solely on the players and distanced his real client from anything to do with the scandal. Read the entire testimony. There are statements in it that completely contradict his so-called confession.

It's a messy world we live in.
:(:

Thankfully this episode from baseball's past has more historical importance than is trusted by credible historians to be left to the psuedo-journalists who write sports columns. There is plenty of credible evidence suggesting the real conspiracy was not by the players with the gamblers, but rather the owners and Judge Landis to make themselves look clean and protect the business interests of MLB with its fans.

Judge Landis is a bigger-than-life persona only in the fairytales spun on the sports pages, written by the same dopes eating for free inside the pressbox.

Baseball and Judge Landis aren't fooling anyone.

:cool:

voodoochile
10-21-2005, 11:12 PM
Jackson was "represented" by Comiskey's lawyer who advised him to confess to the grand jury. What does the word "misrepresentation" mean to you? Or for that matter, "unethical"?

Albert Austrian, the lawyer, didn't bother to tell Jackson that he was representing only Comiskey. The advice for Jackson to confess put the onus solely on the players and distanced his real client from anything to do with the scandal. Read the entire testimony. There are statements in it that completely contradict his so-called confession.

Alright, I will but not tonight. Tonight I am going to bed and tomorrow I am rooting for a WS victory and thus will be preoccupied with present day dealings.

I guess the question becomes where do we draw the line? There are going to be very rare instances when a player will actually confess to something that unethical and then not try and rescind it.

I got no problem with banning Comiskey too if he was complicit in the deal.

I want clean sports from a win/lose perspective and also prefer they not be chemically enhanced freaks. That's what I care about. I don't want my boys given special treatment simply becuase they wear my team's colors. Should the entire team be pardoned and reinstated because they weren't convicted? Are we now supposed to believe it never happened? Who knew and stayed silent? Who participated? Who helped plan it? Those people deserve to be punished, IMO.

Strong punishment is a strong deterrent in this case. Now with players highly compensated, even more so. Don't waffle. Don't weasel. Cut hard, cut deep and cut quick to get the disease out. Keep the sport clean.

Daver
10-21-2005, 11:21 PM
I guess the question becomes where do we draw the line?


You raise an interesting point.

Does Palmeiro make the HOF?

Does McGuire make the HOF?

If they do, it proves my point that the MLB HOF is the biggest joke of all the sports HOF's.

Even if they don't, the MLB HOF will remain a joke in my book.

StockdaleForVeep
10-22-2005, 04:43 AM
You raise an interesting point.

Does Palmeiro make the HOF?

Does McGuire make the HOF?

If they do, it proves my point that the MLB HOF is the biggest joke of all the sports HOF's.

Even if they don't, the MLB HOF will remain a joke in my book.

It still takes a hell of alot of talent to hit a ball goin 95+ when yer swingin a small piece of stick. Plus this goes to the whole cork issue, all yer power is generated in yer torque of yer hips. So roids wouldnt be an immense help of that.

I dont think mcqwire should be in the hof cuz his numbers dont show it(unless u make 500 hrs being the cutoff point) Palmeiro i would say yes because of the non hr numbers he's put up. He has had amazing plate apperances. He's not only a hr hitter, he is also an amazing extra bases hitter

SouthSide_HitMen
10-22-2005, 02:33 PM
Voodoo, what does the word "acquitted" mean to you?
:?:

The only person who caught Joe Jackson "red-handed" was the racist Kennesaw Mountain Landis. And as Bill Veeck once noted, he wasn't named Kennesaw Mountain because he came from Maine.

Just because Landis was racist does not mean he was wrong for banning the 8 players. It is a separate issue. All of baseball including Comiskey were culpable in excluding blacks.

Joe Jackson played 8 full seasons and may not even be eligible if reinstated.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacksjo01.shtml

My understanding is you had to play 10 years minimum to be eligible. He did play 5, 5, 20 & 17 games in the 4 years he didn't play a significant number of games and maybe the HOF counts a 5 game season as 1 year - someone with more knowledge may post what constitutes a year in the HOF's eyes.

Since Buck Weaver was not an active participant I have no problem either way with his reinstatement. The other 7 should be banned for being active participants.

Unless there is evidence Pete Rose bet against the Reds I think he should be reinstated as well (I'm sure I'll be crucified for this) as a player and be elected to the HOF. Since he gambled while managing , he should not be allowed to hold any management position in MLB and their organizations (i.e. Cincinnati Reds). He is not nor ever will be rehabilitated.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2005, 02:37 PM
Just because Landis was racist does not mean he was wrong for banning the 8 players. It is a separate issue. ....
Since Buck Weaver was not an active participant I have no problem either way with his reinstatement....

I mention Landis's bigotry merely to illustrate what a twisted mind he posessed and his complete unfitness for dispensing anything even remotely resembling justice on behalf of the "best interests of baseball." The fact you agree with me about his utterly stupid treatment of Buck Weaver says you're having problems with Landis's version of justice, too.
:cool:

Welcome to the 21st century. And in the case of Landis's racism, welcome to the 20th century, too!

:o:

SouthSide_HitMen
10-22-2005, 02:38 PM
Jackson was "represented" by Comiskey's lawyer who advised him to confess to the grand jury. What does the word "misrepresentation" mean to you? Or for that matter, "unethical"?

Albert Austrian, the lawyer, didn't bother to tell Jackson that he was representing only Comiskey. The advice for Jackson to confess put the onus solely on the players and distanced his real client from anything to do with the scandal. Read the entire testimony. There are statements in it that completely contradict his so-called confession.

Regardless unless Jackson was required or did perjure himself - represent he did receive $5,000 when in fact he received nothing, he did take the money and should never be reinstated regardless of how cheap Comiskey was.

I agree as far as the law is concerned this "misrepresentation" should be considered if any of the men were actually convicted. MLB does not have to have a conviction in a court of law to ban one or 8 of their players.

Pete Rose was never convicted of gambling in a court (he was convicted of tax evasion for not reporting his income) yet he is banned.

Sorry but I have no mercy for people who conspired to fix the World Series whether it be 1919 or God forbid 2005.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2005, 02:42 PM
Sorry but I have no mercy for people who conspired to fix the World Series whether it be 1919 or God forbid 2005.

Yeah, to hell with the courts. Let's let Landis mete out "justice." He's a real paragon of jurisprudence. Just ask the sportswriters... assuming you can tear them away from the complimentary deli plate inside the pressbox long enough to offer a wisecrack that passes for an enlightened opinion on the matter.
:o:

Never bite the hand that feeds, the first credo of these bums.
:cool:

SouthSide_HitMen
10-22-2005, 02:49 PM
I mention Landis's bigotry merely to illustrate what a twisted mind he posessed and his complete unfitness for dispensing anything even remotely resembling justice on behalf of the "best interests of baseball." The fact you agree with me about his utterly stupid treatment of Buck Weaver says you're having problems with Landis's version of justice, too.
:cool:

Welcome to the 21st century. And in the case of Landis's racism, welcome to the 20th century, too!

:o:

Baseball ownership hired Landis because he represented their views. He didn't rule in their favor 110% of the time like Bud Selig but he was lock stock and barrel in agreement with purging anyone tainted in gambling scandals as well as keeping the color barrier a firm one. Not one owner supported breaking the color barrier. Most players supported it as well to keep out players who could take their jobs. Landis, who also supported this, had no problems keeping the status quo. I'm not defending Landis' racist views - I am stating they were nearly universal at the time within MLB and that Landis was hired to reflect and defend the views of ownership who hired him including racism.

I still think the players involved including Joe Jackson who did receive money should be banned no matter who was commissioner at the time and I'll agree to disagree at this point. This altered White Sox baseball specifically and all of baseball generally. It cost us possible World Championships in the 1920s and may have altered our team's fortunes for many decades. I don't have much sympathy for Comiskey either but I do for the White Sox fans who had to suffer through poor baseball in the 1920s and beyond.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2005, 02:52 PM
Baseball ownership hired Landis because he represented their views. ....

Actually there is PLENTY of published statements and other empirical evidence attributed to owners of the time and others inside baseball indicating Landis DID NOT REPRESENT the views of the owners. To the contrary, Landis put down any dissension in the ranks by forcing his views on everyone else. Segregation didn't end in baseball until Landis was finally dead and gone. You think that's a coincidence?
:o:

You really need to start getting your news of the world from someplace besides Jerome Holtzman and the dopes writing America's sports columns. They have NO CREDIBILITY on this matter.

:o:

SouthSide_HitMen
10-22-2005, 02:55 PM
Just ask the sportswriters... assuming you can tear them away from the complimentary deli plate inside the pressbox long enough to offer a wisecrack that passes for an enlightened opinion on the matter.


I wonder what Jay Mariotti would have to say in 1920. :cower:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2005, 02:56 PM
I wonder what Jay Mariotti would have to say in 1920. :cower:

I'm sure we could count on him saying whatever drew the most attention to himself. That's easy to predict.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-22-2005, 03:06 PM
Actually there is PLENTY of published statements and other empirical evidence attributed to owners of the time and others inside baseball indicating Landis DID NOT REPRESENT the views of the owners. To the contrary, Landis put down any dissension in the ranks by forcing his views on everyone else. Segregation didn't end in baseball until Landis was finally dead and gone. You think that's a coincidence?
:o:

Many owners were against ending segregation. Ownership decades later (Red Cubs, Cubs come to mind) had problems retaining more than a couple back players. Landis did not represent the owners on every issue but he did represent a solid majority when it came to segregation. These owners owned the same teams pre Landis and baseball was segregated. It wasn't as if there was a huge turnover in ownership with some new enlightened group wanting to change things but some old bigot blocked them at everyturn. Baseball lifted segregation after World War II due to blacks contributions in the war, the shift of society towards more enlightened views and other factors. Baseball was never ahead of the curve but behind it (always have been, always will be).

I hope I still get my avatar. :tongue:

I've said my piece. I know there are people on both sides of this (banishment) issue.

My thoughts will now turn to happier thoughts - like the World Series!!!

Peace

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2005, 03:23 PM
Many owners were against ending segregation. Ownership decades later (Red Cubs, Cubs come to mind) had problems retaining more than a couple back players. Landis did not represent the owners on every issue but he did represent a solid majority when it came to segregation.

Wait a minute! How did you come to the conclusion Landis represented the majority of the owners? I've never heard anything like this except in the fairytales written by the likes of Jerome Holtzman. Christ, he's not your source on this is he?
:?:

Branch Rickey is the one given credit for desegrating baseball but he had been executive of the Dodgers for years during Landis's reign. And Bill Veeck tried to buy the Phillies in the 30's but was blocked by Landis precisely because he feared Veeck would stock the team with black ballplayers. Veeck's dad had been an executive with the Cubs dating to the 1910's!

Are you seriously going to assert Landis was merely following the owners' wishes and not imposing his views on this matter? You can't seriously suggest Rickey suddenly grew a spine by mere coincidence after Landis was dead, can you?
:o:

One of the biggest reasons the Cubs and Red Sox sucked for so many years was their backward views on the matter of segregation. I hardly think the barnicles running those two misfit organizations spoke for most of baseball's teams -- forget about the notion they all thought that way! -- especially when you consider how fast the rest of the teams added black players to their roster after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier with the Dodgers.

Separately... if you haven't got an avatar it's because you never replied to my request to know your user name. Check your email.

SouthSide_HitMen
10-22-2005, 03:37 PM
Wait a minute! How did you come to the conclusion Landis represented the majority of the owners? I've never heard anything like this except in the fairytales written by the likes of Jerome Holtzman. Christ, he's not your source on this is he?

Actually I have never read much if any from Holtzman. IIRC much of what I have read about it came from Bill Veeck's books - he argued how the owners were backwards about most things segregation being one of them.

I think he tried buying the Phillies in the early 40s before he went to War.

I just don't see a significant change in ownership from the pre Landis days when segregation was the rule through the time he died. I agree Chandler was much more hospitable to the change and maybe you are right and Landis singlehandedly blocked segregating baseball but baseball is always very slow to change and I hold ownership and Landis (and the players who didn't want the competition and berated Jackie and several other players for over a decade) accountable.

If you have some literature, books or other sources you can point me and others interested in the subject I would be glad to check them out.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2005, 03:45 PM
....

If you have some literature, books or other sources you can point me and others interested in the subject I would be glad to check them out.

I'll defer to Mr. Torn Labrum for referencing definitive and credible sources discussing the subject of Landis's reign as baseball commissioner.

:cool:

SouthSide_HitMen
10-22-2005, 04:13 PM
I'll defer to Mr. Torn Labrum for referencing definitive and credible sources discussing the subject of Landis's reign as baseball commissioner.

:cool:


:cool: I am interested in history in general and love reading about it. I am interested in the history of segregation as well - Landis' role as well as Owners and Players and hopefully TL will have the time to post a few.

Off to the game!!!

Go White Sox!!!

SoxEd
10-22-2005, 05:51 PM
It still takes a hell of alot of talent to hit a ball goin 95+ when yer swingin a small piece of stick. Plus this goes to the whole cork issue, all yer power is generated in yer torque of yer hips. So roids wouldnt be an immense help of that.


Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post here (in which case, my apologies to you), but here's my response to the above:

Roids don't *make* you stronger - they make you heal more quickly, and therefore allow you to pump more iron (which tears your muscles, triggering them to grow back bigger), thereby giving you an artificial advantage over non-juicers because it allows you to become stronger than them.
Clearly, this includes the muscles in your hip/lower back.

They will also get you off the DL (for muscle injuries) quicker than non-juicers with the same injury, again artificially advantaging you over non-juicers.

They also shrink your testicles, compromise the structural integrity of your bones, and adversely affect the function of your liver and kidneys. There are also potential heart issues associated with long-term steroid use.

They also increase your aggressiveness (they are after all, male hormones), and make you really aggressive when you suddenly stop taking them. Long-term use therefore has implications for a user's Psychological, as well as physical, health.
On a more trivial level, some steroids also give you a repeat of your teenaged acne - which used to make it easy to spot juicers.

All these are just SOME of the reasons they are banned by all reputable sporting bodies. I bet that there are other side-effects which I don't know about because I am not medically-trained.

Juicers are, IMO, worse than the gamblers and the Black Sox - I mean, how many kids today want to emulate the Black Sox?

Even if modern kids do decide to throw games, that in itself will have no direct bearing on their future physical health.

Steroids, on the other hand, can KILL you.
Please find the Congressional testimony of those parents whose teenaged sons died because they were juicing to get in to baseball teams, and then come back and defend juicing to me.

Again, if I have misinterpreted your post, I apologise, but from the bit I quoted I inferred that you weren't particularly annoyed at the juicers.

In my (reactionary?) opinion, the drug cheats should all be permanently banned, and those who took drugs which are banned under Federal Law should be tried for it in Federal Courts.

Or we shold allow athletes to shoot-up with amphetamines and/or coke prior to games, and give them a free ride for that too.