Joe Jackson 1919 Black Sox & Pete Rose.

[63x927is58401]

:atthepc Back around 2002, I heard Bud Selig make a remark, in some way of allowing
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson & Pete Rose, into Baseball Hall of Fame.
What altared his remark, to something else?

Saturday, August 23rd, 1999, Commisioner, Bud Selig said Pete Rose would be invited to the 1999 World Series, if Rose was elected to the All-Century Team & he (Pete Rose) was.
Another note, Rose recieved 629,742 votes & was the ninth of thirty-four All-Century Starters, among outfielders.
Better explain, Rose was listed as an outfielder & ranked 9th among 34 outfielders.

[HDH]

Life-Long Ban Served

Since Joe Jakson, Pete Rose, and others are subject to lifelong bans from baseball, it is sensible that Joe Jackson should be eligible for HOF considersation. He served his time and his lifetime is long past.

[Badfish]

1919

I still think that it was Baseball's fault as to the Black sox scandal, if the governing bodies would have listened to what was going on these event would have never taken place. Hal Chase got a managing job after his manager was fired for calling him a cheat, thus making plyers feel secure in their doings, lets face it those guys were all under paid with no way out of Commiskey's clutches. If baseball keeps guy's like Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver out so should Comminskey and Ban Johnson be left out as they both had prior knowledge of the events that transpired in 1919.

[Skeeters Fan]

I still think that it was Baseball's fault as to the Black Sox scandal

"Baseball" didn't throw the World Series, specific players did that. "Baseball" didn't pay the players to throw the Series, a syndicate of gamblers did that. Refusing to do your best might be an acceptable labor action in some industries, but in sports it smacks of self-loathing, shows nothing but scorn to the fans and should never be accepted.

If baseball keeps guys like Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver out, so should Comiskey and Ban Johnson be left out as they both had prior knowledge of the events that transpired in 1919.

Comiskey and Johnson were not in on the fix. The only thing they could have done would have been to interrupt the Series and then investigate what was going on, which would have been rather unusual to say the least.

I don't want to see Rose or any of the Black Sox in the HOF. In both cases the integrity of baseball was undermined. Gambling is a dangerous activity and all sporting associations should always do their utmost to distance themselves as much as possible from it.

[Badfish]

I'm not saying those guys were right but cominsky ond johnson just civered things up it wasn't until 1921 that they tried to do aything and if it wasn't for johnson's hatred of Comminsky than it might have been handled like Hal Chase's case. those two tried to civer things up for $$ so how are they any better than the players.

[Chadwick]

(1) The Hall of Fame has every right to rule that players on Baseball's ineligible list are also ineligible for election to the Hall of Fame. It is a good and sensible rule. I don't see how the Hall of Fame has anything to do with whether or not Jackson or Rose gets in at this point. Complaints about why hasn't the Hall of Fame done something are pointed in the wrong direction, IMO.


(2) People who argue that Jackson (or Rose) were not guilty of the actions for which they were banned are baseball's equivalent of those who don't believe the holocaust happened. They are both well established facts attacked only by those shackled by the chains of wishful thinking.

[Badfish]

I don't think you understand my point, Ban Johnson And Comminsky both were aware of what was taking place before the series started, Joe Jackson sopposedly tried to approach Comminsky on the subject but was turned away. Comminsky approached Johnson But both chose to ignore it for personal gain. If it weren't for a reporter chances are nothing would have been done, which was common place back then. Owners like having Gamblers there thinking it would increase intrest and thus increase revenues. My point is how can you bann the 8 player who were proven innocent by a jury of their peers only to banned from baseball for colusion, if colusion is the case than Johnson and Comminsky should aslo be out..

[Badfish]

First off the only reason Comminsky tried to keep things quite was becase of the money it cost him to aqquire those players i'm pretty sure he paid 65,000. for Jackson. As far as Jackson not say anything in the trial he was consulled by cominsky's lawyer as were Cicotte and the other guy i'm drawing a blank right now. Comminsky played thing perfectly he was in a win win sittuatioi, Jackson and Cicotte both thought Australian Cant remember the guys name but they thought he was their lawyer and they were misled by him and Comminsky. Brsides how could Jackson have written a connfession when he couldn't read what it said. In the off season of 1919 he mailed the white sox several times and even went to talk to commminsky about the 5000.00 he recieved and was told to keep it. how much of this true noone knows but in what i've read it seems to me that there was allot of funny stuff going on back then. just my opion dont take it personal. and as far as rose goes he should be banned that rule was inplace when he broke it it wasn;t when those guys did. it just seems to me that Johnson and Comminsky were more into screwing each other than they were into getting to the bottom of things.

[Skeeters Fan]

that rule was inplace when he broke it it wasn;t when those guys did.

Hey, hold on there just a minute. The 1877 Louisville Grays got caught taking a dive in the second-ever NL pennant race. 4 Grays were banned from the game. For life.

Selling ballgames wasn't some kind of neat marketing opportunity that got clamped down on; it obviously cheats the fans, who happen to be the customers of the product. There's no way in hell that any ballplayer who ever took the field didn't know that throwing games was forbidden.

Comiskey treated the White Sox very shabbily when he got the chance. But his involvement with baseball goes a lot deeper than 1919 or even being a team owner. His record as player/manager has a lot to do with his enshrinement in HOF.

Johnson has much less to answer for. Johnson brought in the American League with a much cleaner style of play than the National League had been featuring through the 1890s. The AL's success forced the senior circuit to crack down on onfield cheating and dirty tactics.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Hal Chase is on the permanently ineligible list. Try reading up on the subject. Just looking at the statistics hardly tells the story.

And, again, it is COMISKEY.

[Badfish]

Thanks for the info I knew about Comminsky's carreer but I wasn't aware of The gray's. If that rule ws inplace than why the announcment from Judge Landis and why wasn't anything done to Hal Chase. Belive me I don't think what was done was right but looking at the stats it seems to me Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson Didn't dump. As for Cicotte and Williams there is no doubt. Also if that rule was inplace than why did they wait ubtill the 20 season ws over and a writer brought out again before anything was done.

[Skeeters Fan]

The first allegations against Chase were made in 1908. In 1918 he was suspended by his manager, Christy Mathewson, for violating NL Rule 40 (calling for permanent disqualification of anyone fixing a game, or even offering to).

On Jan. 30, 1919, a hearing was held by NL President John Heydler. Several of Chase's accusers including Mathewson were unable to attend the hearing. Heydler felt that Chase was guilty but did not have enough evidence to do anything but acquit him at that time. But by late 1919 Heydler had the evidence he needed and banned Chase from the NL. Landis permanently banned Chase from baseball in 1921.

What happened in between 1908 and 1919 is pretty complicated. Chase wound up going from team to team, jumping to the International League and the Federal League at different times. Wherever he went he wound up being talked about. Chase was a very gifted player and it seems that there was always someone willing to take a chance on him (John McGraw gave testimony at the 1919 hearing and then signed Chase for the 1919 season).

[Badfish]

From what I've read while with thegaints he was accused of dumping by his manager the manager was fired and he became the manager

[Skeeters Fan]

In 1919, his only year with the Giants, Chase was benched towards the end of the season by McGraw, who apparently accused him of throwing games to the Cincinnati Reds.

Late in the 1910 season Chase's running feud with New York Highlanders manager George Stallings broke open. Stallings accused Chase of trying to throw a game and threatened to resign if Chase was not removed from the club; Chase threatened to leave the club if Stallings was not fired. (The Highlanders owners consisted of a notorious gambler and a crooked police comissioner). Chase won.

He became manager for the end of 1910 and for all of 1911. The team lost several places in the standings; Chase resigned as manager after 1911 but stayed on with NY AL (which became, of course, the Yankees) until early in the 1913 season.

[Bill Burgess]

If someone throws a game, thereby cheating the fans of an honest game, I agree that there should be no clemency.

1. In America, the principle is, "Innocent until proof of guilt, beyond a shadow of a down." That applies to criminal proceedings. Not civil.

2. Joe Jackson was party to 2 trials. The first was admittedly a farce. All 8 accused players were acquitted on lack of evidence after transcripts were stolen from the Chicago prosecutors office. Most have ever since suspected the Comiskey/Rothstein axis of the purloined papers.

The second 1922 trial, where Jackson sued the Chicago team of back pay for '21-22. The jury believed Jackson was not guilty of ANY wrong-doing in anything, including throwing a ball game, or anything else. The jury voted to award Jackson every penny of his back pay, but the judge decided to edit certain passages of the 1921 trial, while disregarding/ignoring all the other parts of the transcript, and over-turned the judgment of the 12 person jury, and imprisoned Jackson for about a day, on the grounds of perjury.

Charles Comiskey didn't have the stomach or backbone to have his ruined tatters of a reputation dragged through the mud yet again, and so he paid Joe Jackson his settlement to make his nightmare go away. The terms of the settlement were sealed to protect Commie. For him to admit he was paying Jackson off was too humiliating to make public the amount.

Jackson's incessant assertions during the trial that Commie knew from the onset what was going on, and made a fake, bogus offer of money to anyone who knew that a scandal happened was far too mortifying for Commie to face any longer. Comiskey could also not face the BB public and have to account for how he was in possession of the stolen transcripts. How mortifying!

All the parties are long dead. Most of the details are based on hearsay. Most here, including me, are unlikely to change our views. For the anti-Jackson faction to speak as if they know more than the pro-Jackson faction serves no purpose, and doesn't move us further down the road.

If the details of this issue were to ever be argued in an honest trial, there is no way that the burden of reasonable doubt could ever be overcome.

All the main points of the anti-Jackson group, have counter-arguments, which are credible and possible, regardless if one believes them.



It appears to me that the majority of anti-Jackson clique bases their main feelings on his first trial testimony. And that is as sad as it is untenable. The full transcript is so terribly twisted and deliberately self-contradicting that anyone who bases ANYTHING ON IT, is irresponsible.

Yes, Jackson does "confess" that he took money. Yes, he does claim that he "let down at the plate." But he also says that he never let up, always tried to win, and that he tried to take the money to give to his management. His testimony is so obviously under 2 separate influences that it simply can not be used to prove that he is "confessing". Those who post here, either an edited or unedited version of Jackson's testimony, as proof of his guilt, are themselves guilty of terrible judgment, and are as pathetic as Jackson's sad "confession". No confession of that kind could stand up in today's courts. Not with an attorney of any substance. Jackson went through that first trial without ANY legal representation, which right there invalidates the proceedings as any test of his innocence.

If you had to go through a trial without a lawyer, would you feel as if your fate had been fairly processed? Before Jackson testified, he had been put into a room with a man whose interests were opposite his own, and had the fear of God put into him. Worse, he trusted that man, Alfred Austrian. And his testimony horribly reflected that conversation, which was wholly inappropriate legally, and was a major conflict of interest.


Chancellor:
(2) "People who argue that Jackson (or Rose) were not guilty of the actions for which they were banned are baseball's equivalent of those who don't believe the holocaust happened. They are both well established facts attacked only by those shackled by the chains of wishful thinking."

(Bill - I agree with you on Rose. On Jackson, I'm just saddened that you feel this way. I suddenly feel like a pathetic idiot. (Just teasing.) There is just so much counter-argumentation on the other side. But oh well. I still admire your BB chops.)

Bill Burgess