southsider2k5 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 SportsCenter @SportsCenter 22m22 minutes ago MLB commissioner Rob Manfred denies request to reinstate Shoeless Joe Jackson. http://es.pn/1PJ1g2x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Honestly I find this stuff kind of tired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Was hoping that he'd get a shot to get in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrockinMT Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Reading between the lines does not bode well for Pete Rose other then Rose didn't throw any games that we know of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 What a joke. All evidence points towards his innocence. Manfred just doesn't have the balls to reinstate him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I do believe he was innocent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavum Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 10:37 AM) Honestly I find this stuff kind of tired. Me too. I find it funny when a fan today gets emotional about Joe Jackson or Buck Weaver. Gambling was rampant before 1920. They finally did something about it after the 1919 World Series. That was the final straw, and the game has been better for it since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 11:40 AM) Me too. I find it funny when a fan today gets emotional about Joe Jackson or Buck Weaver. Gambling was rampant before 1920. They finally did something about it after the 1919 World Series. That was the final straw, and the game has been better for it since. Most of the evidence points to Jackson being innocent. He was a victim of the other 7 idiots using his name with the gamblers since he was the leagues star player at the time. No one disputes the black sox took money and threw the series. Jackson however did not. The White Sox are pretty short on historically great players, so it'd be great to see one of the few actually honored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 I think it speaks volumes about his innocence that people always contend for him, but not for Cicotte who was another dominant player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 12:32 PM) I do believe he was innocent He was acquitted but banned for not narc-ing on the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) He was acquitted but banned for not narc-ing on the others. He attempted to inform Comiskey of the scandal but Comiskey refused to meet with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasttriptotulsa Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) Most of the evidence points to Jackson being innocent. He was a victim of the other 7 idiots using his name with the gamblers since he was the leagues star player at the time. No one disputes the black sox took money and threw the series. Jackson however did not. The White Sox are pretty short on historically great players, so it'd be great to see one of the few actually honored. 6 idiots. Buck Weaver was only banned for not informing officials when he caught wind of the scandal but otherwise had zero involvement. Edited September 1, 2015 by lasttriptotulsa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 As he should have. We are talking about the validity of a sport being overturned, if this happened in modern day, I'd expect banning from the sport to be the least of the concern. If baseball didn't come down hard on this, who knows if it's popularity would have continued in the modern eras. Could have ended up like horseracing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliSoxFanViaSWside Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (knightni @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 10:13 AM) He was acquitted but banned for not narc-ing on the others. No one likes a rat.Look how long steroids infected the game. How many players came forth to expose them over the years with most likely many knowing of it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 01:00 PM) As he should have. We are talking about the validity of a sport being overturned, if this happened in modern day, I'd expect banning from the sport to be the least of the concern. If baseball didn't come down hard on this, who knows if it's popularity would have continued in the modern eras. Could have ended up like horseracing. The need to boot Thomas out of the hall next for not naming names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 Being 100% honest, I know next to nothing about the case outside of what I saw in 8 Men Out. What are you all using as source materials for what really happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 02:21 PM) Being 100% honest, I know next to nothing about the case outside of what I saw in 8 Men Out. What are you all using as source materials for what really happened? There's a lot of information out there if you do some quick googling. People have done a lot of research on this using newspaper reports from the time, testimonies, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Steroids were not even banned during Thomas's time. ANd frankly, even if they were, to pretty much everyone not making cheap points, purposely throwing a game is a completely different level than taking performance enhancers. There is a huge difference when you are changing the game so that the result is fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 01:47 PM) Steroids were not even banned during Thomas's time. ANd frankly, even if they were, to pretty much everyone not making cheap points, purposely throwing a game is a completely different level than taking performance enhancers. There is a huge difference when you are changing the game so that the result is fixed. They were banned for essentially the entirety of Thomas' career. They probably had a bigger impact on the game than throwing games ever did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 That is such bull. Would anyone watch baseball if there was serious doubt over whether the games were fixed? Would you watch baseball again if it turned out the White Sox lost in the world series because the umpires were paid off? People certainly answered whether they would watch baseball if there were players on performance enhancers. The difference on the real "integrity of the game" is so gigantic it's not even debatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 01:47 PM) Steroids were not even banned during Thomas's time. ANd frankly, even if they were, to pretty much everyone not making cheap points, purposely throwing a game is a completely different level than taking performance enhancers. There is a huge difference when you are changing the game so that the result is fixed. Technically they were always banned, they just weren't tested for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 01:59 PM) Technically they were always banned, they just weren't tested for. Alright, sure, but stuff like this was going on that is banned now: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/27/opinion/...-pep-pills.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 1, 2015 Author Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 01:57 PM) That is such bull. Would anyone watch baseball if there was serious doubt over whether the games were fixed? Would you watch baseball again if it turned out the White Sox lost in the world series because the umpires were paid off? People certainly answered whether they would watch baseball if there were players on performance enhancers. The difference on the real "integrity of the game" is so gigantic it's not even debatable. There is a large difference in logic and motivation here. With steroids, it was all about guys trying to win. With gambling, the chances is there that someone is trying to lose. That makes a very big difference to me in terms of punishment. Someone who is purposefully trying to lose should never be allowed to play professional baseball again, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 01:50 PM) They were banned for essentially the entirety of Thomas' career. They probably had a bigger impact on the game than throwing games ever did. It's arguable that steroids had a positive impact on the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 1, 2015 -> 02:01 PM) There is a large difference in logic and motivation here. With steroids, it was all about guys trying to win. With gambling, the chances is there that someone is trying to lose. That makes a very big difference to me in terms of punishment. Someone who is purposefully trying to lose should never be allowed to play professional baseball again, period. With steroids you have players honestly motivated and trying to compete, in the other, you have the absence of competition. Not unfairness within competition, but the absence of it. That's a huge deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.