Pete Rose: I changed my mind.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

Joe Jackson never agreed to take any money. Lefty Williams offered it to him, and then tossed it in his hotel room when he refused. Jackson attempted to give the money to Charles Comiskey and tell him about the other players' plot, but he wouldn't meet with him.

Then, when the actual trial was brought on, Jackson was represented by the team's attorney, Alfred Austrian. Austrian told Jackson to admit to throwing the series, and when Jackson refused because he was innocent, Austrian convinced him that not doing so would result in angry gamblers attempting to hurt him and his family. He also aggressively worked to get Jackson drunk, at which point Jackson finally agreed to admit his guilt in the case. Austrian also goaded the illiterate Jackson to sign a waiver of immunity. The players involved have since admitted that Jackson was not involved and his name only came up because they needed to give their plot credibility for gamblers to back their cause.

My source: The Team by Team Encyclopedia of Major League Baseball: By Dennis Purdy ... - Dennis Purdy - Google Books

Unfortunately, all we have are the transcripts where Jackson admitted he knew about it, admitted being offered the money, admitting taking money and expressed his annoyance with not getting all of the money he was promised.

Austrian representing Jackson was indeed a conflict of interest. But where is the actual evidence of the things that Austrian is alleged to have done? It's all conjecture and hearsay.

And when it comes to the other players saying that Shoeless wasn't involved. let's be honest here. There was a movement in the late 40's to get Jackson reinstated so he could get into the HOF. It's funny his "friends" started touting his innocence at this time after 30 years.

I really don't care if Jackson makes it to the HOF at this point. It's pretty much irrelevant. It just seems that there are so many people that have evolved this romantic vision of Joe Jackson . Is it a sad baseball story? Yes. Is it partly a "what could've been?" Yes. Hell, believe it or not, even I would love for some undiscovered document to turn up that would help clear his name. But when it comes down to it, all we have to go on are the facts as they've been preserved. Those facts support his ban. And Jackson supporters will never accept it.

[MorseMoose]

In the end, I see no evidence that Pete Rose's stats (as player and manager) are not affected by his betting.

Let the stats stand on their own.

(That said...screw Barry Bonds and his steroid-ridden stats ).

[damientheomen3]

All fair points. I doubt I would be a Jackson supporter had I not only become a baseball fan within the last half decade, but there's just something so damn fishy about it all that I can't help but err on the side of contrary here. Oh well, to each their own.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

All fair points. I doubt I would be a Jackson supporter had I not only become a baseball fan within the last half decade, but there's just something so damn fishy about it all that I can't help but err on the side of contrary here. Oh well, to each their own.

Jackson had an IQ that today would probably be considered in the sub standard 'slow' level. There is a chance he did not completely understand what exactly was going on nor the grand conspiracy that was afoot.

I don't think Jackson threw the series, but he had knowledge that it was being thrown and did not do everything in his power to alert the proper people.

[gbwitheyes]

I never understood how a player that crafted such a career could be kept from the HOF. Did his betting impact the incredible stats Pete compiled? Did betting diminish his zest for playing?

The fact that we are still talking about this is shameful.

[Questdog]

Well, one thing about the ban is that more people are talking about and remembering Pete than would be if he never got in trouble.

Without the ban, I bet Pete does not get a lot of the appearance checks he has earned over the years.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I don't think Jackson threw the series, but he had knowledge that it was being thrown and did not do everything in his power to alert the proper people.

At least according to his own accounts, he did attempt to meet with the owner and inform him but Comiskey wouldn't give him the time of day.

Originally Posted by Questdog

Well, one thing about the ban is that more people are talking about and remembering Pete than would be if he never got in trouble.

So they won't be in the trouble that Pete Rose had. Do we learn from history or not?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

He knew the punishment when he did the crime. So, he's doing the time. End of story.

And it's not as if the rules against betting on ball games is recent. The 1940 edition of the Major League Rules contains exactly the same phrasing as the 2008 edition of the rules I was quoting from earlier. So that's at least 68 years of those rules being in effect under the exact same wording.

[Orcin]

I have no problem with Pete Rose being banned from playing or managing in major league baseball, but that ban shouldn't exclude him from the Hall of Fame. If a rule needs to be changed, let's change the rule.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I have no problem with Pete Rose being banned from playing or managing in major league baseball, but that ban shouldn't exclude him from the Hall of Fame. If a rule needs to be changed, let's change the rule.

I agree with this.

I believe he should be in the HOF because, in my view, achievements between the foul lines should be the important thing in honoring the game's greatest players. And, after all, Rose is the all-time hits leader. (Nobody has suggested anything so Orwellian as to erase that fact.) There are some dubious characters in the Hall but they were all great ballplayers.

On the other hand, I don't think he should ever be allowed to coach, manage, own a team, or have any other involvement with MLB, ever. I think he should be inducted into the HOF and barred from the ceremony (if any).

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

All fair points. I doubt I would be a Jackson supporter had I not only become a baseball fan within the last half decade, but there's just something so damn fishy about it all that I can't help but err on the side of contrary here. Oh well, to each their own.

I agree on the fishy part. Almost everybody involved in the whole sordid process comes off as not being entirely truthful about the events that transpired, banned or not. The only thing I'm truly confident in is that we'll never know the true story. Which just leaves me with the transcripts, for better or worse.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by wireman

I agree with this.

I believe he should be in the HOF because, in my view, achievements between the foul lines should be the important thing in honoring the game's greatest players. And, after all, Rose is the all-time hits leader. (Nobody has suggested anything so Orwellian as to erase that fact.) There are some dubious characters in the Hall but they were all great ballplayers.

On the other hand, I don't think he should ever be allowed to coach, manage, own a team, or have any other involvement with MLB, ever. I think he should be inducted into the HOF and barred from the ceremony (if any).

I agree with everything except being banned from the ceremony. If he earned it on the field, then he earned the right to stand on that stage the same as every other player who earned it on the field.

[pstrickert]

Here's a question: Is it wise to make the punishment an automatic lifetime ban from the HOF? What about trusting the HOF voters to decide whether the infraction should keep him out of the HOF? Same as with the steroid users?

[John Madden]

One person gambling does WAY MORE to undermine the integrity of the sport than if the entire league was juicing. They aren't even comparable.

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by Jason

I agree with everything except being banned from the ceremony. If he earned it on the field, then he earned the right to stand on that stage the same as every other player who earned it on the field.

He also earned a lifetime ban. Why should "he hit a bunch" let him skirt his punishment?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by John Madden

One person gambling does WAY MORE to undermine the integrity of the sport than if the entire league was juicing. They aren't even comparable.

Interesting statement. Would you like to explain why?

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by John Madden

One person gambling does WAY MORE to undermine the integrity of the sport than if the entire league was juicing. They aren't even comparable.

That is not a well-thought out statement.

One person fixing games, yes......one person betting on his team to win, no......

I agree he should not have bet period, but there is absolute no proof or hint of proof that he ever bet against the Reds.

What he did was wrong because it gave the perception of impropriety.....what the juicers did was wrong because it was 1) illegal and 2) cheating, both in a real sense, not just in the perception........

Back in the late 1800's it was common practice (as in every game) for the two teams to put up a stake to go to the winner of the game. The only difference in what Pete did was that it was no longer an accepted practice.....

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by Questdog

That is not a well-thought out statement.

One person fixing games, yes......one person betting on his team to win, no......

Disagree entirely.

I agree he should not have bet period, but there is absolute no proof or hint of proof that he ever bet against the Reds.

Doesn't matter.

What he did was wrong because it gave the perception of impropriety.....what the juicers did was wrong because it was 1) illegal and 2) cheating, both in a real sense, not just in the perception........

What Rose did was banned decades before Rose was born, and for very good reason. The players and managers cannot and should not have links to gamblers.

Steroids weren't even enforced until after Rose's ban.

Back in the late 1800's it was common practice (as in every game) for the two teams to put up a stake to go to the winner of the game. The only difference in what Pete did was that it was no longer an accepted practice.....

That's the only difference? This is not a very well-thought-out statement. Rose dealt with bookies and other criminals. How is two teams placing a prize pool on a game the same as a manager illegally betting through criminal organizations?

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by John Madden

Steroids weren't even enforced until after Rose's ban.

Steroid use was illegal before baseball ever took any notice of it.

I am not saying that what Pete did was not wrong, but saying that he associated with criminal organizations makes it sound a lot different than it was. A local bookie is not the mafia. Steroid users by definition have to associate with criminal organizations to obtain them.

What Pete did was against the rules of baseball and deserves punishment. The rules are there to make sure that there is no appearance of impropriety to maintain the trust of the public. But doing something that appears improper is a lot different than doing something that IS improper.