PDA

View Full Version : Clear Buck Weaver


gobears1987
07-09-2006, 03:41 PM
http://www.clearbuck.com

Please go to this site and sign the petition to clear Buck Weaver. Landis committed a great travesty in banning Buck Weaver. We need to try to do anything we can to undo the damage that the putz did.

tick53
07-09-2006, 05:31 PM
:bandance: I jumped all over this, thanks! Great site too. All Sox fans must go here.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-09-2006, 07:34 PM
I heard about the site while watching the WS. Hopefully it can help Weaver.

Baby Fisk
07-11-2006, 09:55 AM
To get this campaign anywhere near Bud Selig's inbox, it will require a push from the White Sox organization. Now that the whole "black sox" thing has been consigned to its proper place in distant history, the Sox should make the effort to clear Weaver's name via reinstatement. Jerry Reinsdorf could bring this matter to Selig's attention with one phone call, no? Getting Weaver's name cleared would further cement Reinsdorf's newfound place in the hearts of Chicago baseball fans.

TDog
07-11-2006, 02:38 PM
Buck Weaver is more deserving of reinstatement than Joe Jackson.

TornLabrum
07-11-2006, 03:02 PM
Buck Weaver is more deserving of reinstatement than Joe Jackson.

Yeah, after all Weaver knew about the fix but just didn't tell anyone whereas Jackson only tried to give the money back to Comiskey but Grabiner told him to shut up and keep it because, "We know all about that."

1917
07-11-2006, 03:09 PM
Yeah, after all Weaver knew about the fix but just didn't tell anyone whereas Jackson only tried to give the money back to Comiskey but Grabiner told him to shut up and keep it because, "We know all about that."

I didn't know that.... I thought he took the money, but no offense, was just too "simple" to realize what he did and just keep playing his game....Weaver just got screwed, he got black balled for not being a rat.

TornLabrum
07-11-2006, 03:18 PM
I didn't know that.... I thought he took the money, but no offense, was just too "simple" to realize what he did and just keep playing his game....Weaver just got screwed, he got black balled for not being a rat.

Jackson was illiterate. That means he went to work in a mill as a kid instead of to school. From everything I've read, he wasn't stupid. He did manage to run a couple of businesses successfully after he got out of baseball.

MarySwiss
07-11-2006, 04:12 PM
Does anyone know if this is the same campaign that originally surfaced last year? If so, is there any point in signing it again? If there is, then I will.

Uncle_Patrick
07-11-2006, 04:24 PM
Does anyone know if this is the same campaign that originally surfaced last year? If so, is there any point in signing it again? If there is, then I will.

Probably. I know that the "Clear Buck" guys were at the 2005 Sox Fest because I remember getting a sticker from them and checking out the website back then.

Ol' No. 2
07-11-2006, 04:32 PM
Does anyone know if this is the same campaign that originally surfaced last year? If so, is there any point in signing it again? If there is, then I will.It's actually been going on for a long time.

Andy T Clown
07-11-2006, 11:08 PM
Jackson was illiterate. That means he went to work in a mill as a kid instead of to school. From everything I've read, he wasn't stupid. He did manage to run a couple of businesses successfully after he got out of baseball.

With Jacksons stats in the Series, do you think he was trying to throw the games? (Serious question, I am not trying to be a smart a**)

nasox
07-11-2006, 11:30 PM
With Jacksons stats in the Series, do you think he was trying to throw the games? (Serious question, I am not trying to be a smart a**)

I am far from a Black Sox scholar, but flaws in his game wouldn't necessarily show up in the box score (ie talking bad routs, laying off hanging curves, etc.)

But I think that your question is one that raises questions.....:?:

Uncle_Patrick
07-11-2006, 11:35 PM
With Jacksons stats in the Series, do you think he was trying to throw the games? (Serious question, I am not trying to be a smart a**)
I'm not an expert on the situation, so I'm not gonna offer up any conclusions, but here is what I've read:

The stats have been used as Jackson's defense for some time. From what I've read, they are misleading. In the first 5 games, Jackson failed to drive in one run despite coming to bat numerous times with runners in scoring position. However, in the last 4 games, he hit .462 and drove in 6. According to one book I have, this would correspond with when the guilty Sox players decided to no longer throw the Series since they weren't getting the money promised.

TornLabrum
07-12-2006, 12:09 AM
With Jacksons stats in the Series, do you think he was trying to throw the games? (Serious question, I am not trying to be a smart a**)

There are those who cite the fact that Jackson's stats improved tremendously after the Sox decided to play for real. Unfortunately that assumes that you can turn on your hitting by pressing a button.

There are also a lot of phoney things used to "indict" Jackson, like the phantom triples to left field that are found in no contemporary descriptions of the games.

Was he trying to throw games? He says he wasn't. Cicotte said that Jackson's name was used to entice others into the scheme. His grand jury confession is contradictory. The first part is basically what Albert Autrian (I hope I got his first name right), misrepresenting himself by not telling Jackson that he was Comiskey's lawyer, told him to say. But later he says he wasn't cheating.

Ol' No. 2
07-12-2006, 11:25 AM
With Jacksons stats in the Series, do you think he was trying to throw the games? (Serious question, I am not trying to be a smart a**)As others have mentioned, they didn't throw every game. While Jackson's overall average for the series was .385, almost all his hits and all his RBI were in games they weren't throwing. He had not a single RBI in the games that were thrown. That's obviously not conclusive proof, but it certainly lets a lot of air out of the statistical argument that he wasn't throwing games.

Baby Fisk
07-12-2006, 11:40 AM
Regardless of the Jackson stats debate (which can never be resolved conclusively), there is no doubt that Jackson accepted money for the purpose of throwing the series. This is what separates him from Weaver. Weaver was not in on the fix.

voodoochile
07-12-2006, 12:26 PM
Keep 'em all out, keep the message strong that any complicity of this kind of stuff - be it active participation or silent acceptance - will get you banned from baseball for life.

If it can be proven that Comiskey knew of it and did nothing, ban him too and everyone else you can find.

Keep the sport honest.

MRM
07-12-2006, 03:10 PM
Regardless of the Jackson stats debate (which can never be resolved conclusively), there is no doubt that Jackson accepted money for the purpose of throwing the series. This is what separates him from Weaver. Weaver was not in on the fix.

My understanding is that Joe refused the money, found it put into his room and attempted to return it. Then he signed a "confession" he didn't understand on the advice of a Comiskey attorney after being told everyone else was signing them and only those who signed would be allowed to continue playing. In fact Comiskey intended to use these coerced confessions to "prove" he had nothing to do with it so he could keep his franchise.

Assuming this information is factual then I think you have to absolve Jackson if you absolve Weaver as it appears the only "crime" either man commited was failure to expose a plot they were aware of. Both men claimed they had nothing to do with the actual throwing of games until the day they died.

The ridiculous power given to Landis has to be taken into consideration as well. All of the players were found "not guilty" in court and Landis banned them, anyhow. If such an occurance were to happen today, there would be an immediate lawsuit filed and Baseball would lose it's anti-trust exemption immediately. Landis, in effect, created a rule for banning players AFTER the fact. That's the equivolent of the Government arresting you for something THEN passing a law to make the act illegal, justifying the arrest. It was completely absurd. If baseball were allowed to make rules retroactive today, Giambi wouldn't be playing 1st base for the Yankees, McGwire wouldn't be eligible for the HOF, etc.

Were some of the players guilty? No question history shows that at least 6 of them were. However, in this country you can't punish someone who has been aquitted, regardless of actual guilt. Ask OJ Simpson about that one.

MRM
07-12-2006, 03:27 PM
Keep 'em all out, keep the message strong that any complicity of this kind of stuff - be it active participation or silent acceptance - will get you banned from baseball for life.

If it can be proven that Comiskey knew of it and did nothing, ban him too and everyone else you can find.

Keep the sport honest.

I understand that sentiment and agree to an extent. The problem is you have to follow some rule of law, not just make it up as you go along.

If memory serves correctly, Mickey Mantle and Denny McClain (I think those are the two) were briefly banned from baseball after representing a casino in advertisements because doing so technically violated baseball policy (though that policy would never pass legal muster). Eventually cooler heads prevailed (after an outcry from the public) and they were re-instated. Can you imagine Mantle being denied admission to the HOF for his "transgression"?

Imagine Selig holding a press conference today banning Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, etc. based on grand jury testimony. Despite popular belief, steroids WERE a banned substance during the time these men supposedly admitted to using them, they just weren't tested for and exact penalties hadn't been written.

To me, just like everything else in society, Baseball has to have a clear basis in law before making such judgements. "Best interests of baseball" is way too broad and could conceivably be used to ban virtually anyone. ARod was caught in an illegal poker game? Ban him. {Insert name here) was arrested for DUI? Ban him. Canseco smashed up his own car with a baseball bat? Ban him.

Ol' No. 2
07-12-2006, 03:31 PM
If baseball were allowed to make rules retroactive today, Giambi wouldn't be playing 1st base for the Yankees, McGwire wouldn't be eligible for the HOF, etc.So what was your objection again?:cool:

PaulDrake
07-12-2006, 03:40 PM
Regardless of the Jackson stats debate (which can never be resolved conclusively), there is no doubt that Jackson accepted money for the purpose of throwing the series. This is what separates him from Weaver. Weaver was not in on the fix. You know at one point I thought I was starting to become reasonably well versed in the particulars of the Black Sox scandal. No more. It's way too complex, contadictory and multi-layered. That being said, your point is well taken. Buck Weaver came from Pennsylvania coal mine country, and in that environment in that time to be a rat was the absolutely lowest form of life. Buck tried to say as much, to the press and to Commisioner Landis on the few occasions he deigned to meet with him. Unfortunately, Buck and his generation of men were mostly of the strong silent type. Weaver was a good baseball player whose star was just ascending. He greatly deserves to have his name formally cleared. As I have posted in various forums I highly recommend the Nelson Algren short story "The Swede was a Hard Guy" for insight into this tragic event.

Uncle_Patrick
07-12-2006, 03:58 PM
While we are talking about Shoeless Joe and Buck Weaver, has anyone seen this recently?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0000AX639.01http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0000AX639.01-AVRR6WAP2O9Z1._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V52794882_.jpg

See something wrong?

Baby Fisk
07-12-2006, 04:04 PM
While we are talking about Shoeless Joe and Buck Weaver, has anyone seen this recently?

See something wrong?
The "Black Socks?" Good grief!

Uncle_Patrick
07-12-2006, 04:08 PM
The "Black Socks?" Good grief!

Yup. The Healy Company, who makes these, recently redesigned their plaques and apparently their proof-reader missed something. The old design (which I have and prefer) has the correct spelling and is still up on MLB.com

Baby Fisk
07-12-2006, 04:15 PM
MRM: thanks for the background info. As mentioned above, the complexities and uncertainties of this affair are byzantine.

Uncle_Patrick
07-12-2006, 04:30 PM
For those interested, the folks over at brewerfan.net have written an article on the the Shoeless Joe case.

http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewArticle.do?articleId=244


There is also some discussion on their message board.

MRM
07-12-2006, 04:34 PM
MRM: thanks for the background info. As mentioned above, the complexities and uncertainties of this affair are byzantine.

Very true. And hollywood doesn't do history any favors with movies such as 8 men out. "Based on fact" and "reporting fact" are two different things and, unfortunately, many people take some of hollywoods "creative liberties" as being factually accurate parts of the historic story.

The other problem with most versions of the story is they don't spend enough time explaining WHY the players did it in the first place. Most assume it was simple greed which is inaccurate. The players were owed substantial bonus money from the 1917 championship that notorious tight wad Comiskey refused to pay. Eddie Cicotte was also pulled from a couple of starts at the end of the year to make sure he wouldn't earn his contractural bonus for games won. While that doesn't justify the actions the players took, it certainly explains why they would entertain the idea.

TDog
07-12-2006, 05:00 PM
Very true. And hollywood doesn't do history any favors with movies such as 8 men out. "Based on fact" and "reporting fact" are two different things and, unfortunately, many people take some of hollywoods "creative liberties" as being factually accurate parts of the historic story. ...

I think Hollywood has consistently painted Joe Jackson as a martyr, a baseball hero who died for your sins. "Field of Dreams" certainly doesn't portray him as an illiterate Southerner whose wife handled his business dealings.

The signed confession would mean nothing in an American courtroom today (signed by an illiterate man without assistance of counsel, even if he were to waive his rights). But I have read Joe Jackson's grand jury testimony, and I don't see where it helps his cause.

Buck Weaver was singled out from the start by the commissioner and having a different level of guilt. Not that the commissioner cared about justice. He later banned Dickie Kerr (of of the so-called Clean Sox from 1919) among others. In a World Series game, he ordered Ducky Medwick removed because fans he inspired fans to throw things on the field.

Ol' No. 2
07-12-2006, 05:22 PM
Very true. And hollywood doesn't do history any favors with movies such as 8 men out. "Based on fact" and "reporting fact" are two different things and, unfortunately, many people take some of hollywoods "creative liberties" as being factually accurate parts of the historic story.

The other problem with most versions of the story is they don't spend enough time explaining WHY the players did it in the first place. Most assume it was simple greed which is inaccurate. The players were owed substantial bonus money from the 1917 championship that notorious tight wad Comiskey refused to pay. Eddie Cicotte was also pulled from a couple of starts at the end of the year to make sure he wouldn't earn his contractural bonus for games won. While that doesn't justify the actions the players took, it certainly explains why they would entertain the idea.Comiskey wasn't all that out of the ordinary. Remember, this was a time when the owners held a stranglehold on the sport. Over the previous 40 years they'd crushed several rival leagues which threatened their grip on the players, including the Federal League in 1915. When the Federal League sued under the Sherman Act to block enforcement of the reserve clause, they found what they thought was a friendly judge who was rabidly anti-monopoly. He'd ruled 7 years earlier to break up the Standard Oil Trust. Unfortunately for them, he had a different view when it came to monopolies and baseball, and took a much friendlier view toward the owners. He didn't rule on the case, but he sat on it. And sat on it. And sat on it some more, until the Federal League finally folded, taking with it the hopes of the players to finally get some leverage. You might have heard of the judge. His name was Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

And now the players were back under the owners' thumbs and they knew it. It wasn't unheard of in those days for players to throw games for money, but not, to anyones' knowledge, World Series games. Given all that was going on, it's not hard to understand why players would agree to throw games.

MRM
07-12-2006, 05:29 PM
I think Hollywood has consistently painted Joe Jackson as a martyr, a baseball hero who died for your sins. "Field of Dreams" certainly doesn't portray him as an illiterate Southerner whose wife handled his business dealings.

The signed confession would mean nothing in an American courtroom today (signed by an illiterate man without assistance of counsel, even if he were to waive his rights). But I have read Joe Jackson's grand jury testimony, and I don't see where it helps his cause.

Buck Weaver was singled out from the start by the commissioner and having a different level of guilt. Not that the commissioner cared about justice. He later banned Dickie Kerr (of of the so-called Clean Sox from 1919) among others. In a World Series game, he ordered Ducky Medwick removed because fans he inspired fans to throw things on the field.

Except he WAS an illiterate southerner whose wife handled his business dealings. :D: Joe was almost proud of his illiteracy and even made jokes about it to the press. I have never seen any evidence he ever attempted to improve his educational standing. This is what I'm talking about when I say the hollywood versions of the story are deceiving.

He was assisted by counsel when he signed the confession (Comiskeys lawyer) and this was before miranda, so it would have stood up then, had it not been "lost".

Yes, the commisioners ruling was quite broad and intended to make sure all of the accused were banned regardless of actual participation. He was appointed to do precisely that. Hiring Landis was a self serving PR move by the owners, particularly Comiskey. They could appear to be trying to "clean up baseball" while, at the same time avoid any public protest against themselves. Landis would be their fall guy in that regard. The '19 world series was not the first time players threw games for money and the owners were well aware it was going on. Not unlike the recent steroids "scandal" and the hiring of a respected public official to investigate and advise baseball on punishment, nothing was done until it became public knowlege.

As for the Medwick thing, times haven't changed much in that regard, either. The league fined AJ for "inciting the crowd" after getting punched in the face...

MRM
07-12-2006, 05:57 PM
Comiskey wasn't all that out of the ordinary. Remember, this was a time when the owners held a stranglehold on the sport. Over the previous 40 years they'd crushed several rival leagues which threatened their grip on the players, including the Federal League in 1915. When the Federal League sued under the Sherman Act to block enforcement of the reserve clause, they found what they thought was a friendly judge who was rabidly anti-monopoly. He'd ruled 7 years earlier to break up the Standard Oil Trust. Unfortunately for them, he had a different view when it came to monopolies and baseball, and took a much friendlier view toward the owners. He didn't rule on the case, but he sat on it. And sat on it. And sat on it some more, until the Federal League finally folded, taking with it the hopes of the players to finally get some leverage. You might have heard of the judge. His name was Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

And now the players were back under the owners' thumbs and they knew it. It wasn't unheard of in those days for players to throw games for money, but not, to anyones' knowledge, World Series games. Given all that was going on, it's not hard to understand why players would agree to throw games.

Oh, there is no question many/most of the owners of the time took advantage of the players. Comiskey was just the worst of the bunch in some of the measures he took to screw players out of rightfully earned money. I knew that Landis story. That is how he ended up being the commish in the first place.

It's not true that throwing series games was unheard of, however. The first couple of games in the 1915 series were almost certainly thrown...by both teams. In that case the intent wasn't to throw the entire series, just to assure it would go 8 or 9 games. It benefited the players because world series money was based on a percentage of gate receipts and, obviously, a 9 game series draws more paying customers than a shorter series. It benefited the gamblers because they could get better odds betting the number of games rather than just the winner (the Red Sox were huge favorites and expected to win in 5 or 6 games). Sullivan, the gambler who arranged the fix in '19 was also involved in that one. Details on any money received by the players from the gamblers are sketchy, but the facts point strongly to those two games being fixed. The most interesting part of it is it was Cy Young who threw the first game when he forgot how to pitch along with a little help from his team mates who suddenly forgot how to field. (four two-out errors in the first inning)

TDog
07-12-2006, 05:58 PM
...

He was assisted by counsel when he signed the confession (Comiskeys lawyer) and this was before miranda, so it would have stood up then, had it not been "lost". ...

I think it's clear that Comiskey's lawyer wasn't serving in Jackson's interests. By today's standards, it wouldn't have held up. But by today's standards, a single defense team would not have represented all eight defendants at trial, not that they were railroaded into a conviction. Miranda and convictions set aside based on Miranda violations are not arbitrary technicalities. Their justification becomes apparent when you see the way prosecutors were allowed to manipulate the system. Really, in Jackson's case, the manipulation of the system has left the truth of what happened very much in question.

MRM
07-12-2006, 06:09 PM
I think it's clear that Comiskey's lawyer wasn't serving in Jackson's interests. By today's standards, it wouldn't have held up. But by today's standards, a single defense team would not have represented all eight defendants at trial, not that they were railroaded into a conviction. Miranda and convictions set aside based on Miranda violations are not arbitrary technicalities. Their justification becomes apparent when you see the way prosecutors were allowed to manipulate the system. Really, in Jackson's case, the manipulation of the system has left the truth of what happened very much in question.

Absolutely. It's awfully hard to determine what would have happened under todays legal system, though. That trial was the biggest "fix" of all. There was plenty of evidence to convict even without the confessions but, as we know, the jury ignored that evidence and acquitted. Much like the OJ trial. Rules and laws have changed, but times haven't where celebrities are concerned :D: