Shoeless Joe Jackson, Buck Weaver & Pete Rose?

So many people say it is unfair that Major League Baseball refuses to reinstate Rose. However, Rose admitted to the charges and agreed to sentencing. Joseph Jefferson "Shoeless Joe" Jackson and George "Buck" Weaver were acquitted in a court of law of any wrongdoing in the 1919 World Series or the Black Sox scandal. Baseball banned them anyways and they still are unable to be inducted into the Hall of Fame though both are long dead - so doesn't a lifetime ban end with death? Yet these guys are still on baseballs banned ineligible list. Have baseball "fans" forgotten their history when they say Rose should be inducted but forget players like Jackson or Weaver? Weaver, also called "The Gingerbread Kid" tried to clear his name all the way up until he died. So - your thoughts on this? I say NO TO ROSE unless there is justice for those like Jackson and Weaver. And please - educate yourself on their situation before you rush to judgment. Get more info on Jackson at www.blackbetsy.com

Shoeless Joe Jackson, Buck Weaver %26amp; Pete Rose?
I don't believe Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame, he knew what he did was wrong when he was doing it, and he did it anyways. I understand he is remorseful now, but believe it is only because he got caught and is now suffering the consequences.





Buck Weaver was so obviously innocent it is sad. You look at his stats during the 1919 world series and if you still think he was trying to throw a game then clearly you don't know baseball. It was a dark day in baseball when they banned a man with so much talent and such great character that he resisted the pressure from his fellow players.





Shoeless Joe was a little bit more of a grey area. He never fully understood what was going on, he was a bit of an outcast on the team, and was pressured into going along with it. Arguably one of the best ball players ever to play the game, I don't believe he truly understood what he was doing was wrong or even what he agreed to do.





The acquital in the legal courts means nothing, it was a bigger fix than the series. There is no doubt the series was fixed and most of the players on trial were guilty, but they were tried as a group and all were acquitted.
Reply:These are bs b.c were gonna let steriod users in the hall of fame but one who leads in hits and gambled is out and one with the third best career average is kept out and didnt kno that he was set up. it is distgusting
Reply:Unless NEW evidence emerges, a ban from baseball is permanent and should be. There are all kinds of theories about the Black Sox 8 and even about Pete "No I Didn't Yes I Did" Rose, but the bans should stick unless A. Bartlett Giamati's or J.K. Landis' diaries are found and can change the outcome.
Reply:Buck Weaver should never have been banned in the first place. He never took any money. Basically Landis banned Weaver because he thought he should have tattled on his teammates, but I don't think it's realistic to expect a guy to do that.
Reply:Shoeless Joe Jackson and players from that era could not even read . Baseball was completely different in those days. Having Lou Gehrig play major league baseball ,since he was a college graduate or student from Columbia University was cause for excitement in those days. By the time Pete Rose started betting for his team as a manager he could influence the outcome of games he bet on whether he bet to win or lose. He was a complete sleaze for doing that!
Reply:I think the offences at the time may have been comparable, but looking back into history is another thing.





I agree, Rose shouldn't be in because of betting on baseball. He was doing it for kicks and to make extra money while Jackson and Weaver may have done what they did because they knew not participating may not have made a difference and they would lose out on money that was worth a fortune back then.





I guess it's a bit like the analogy of stealing. It's wrong, but if you do it to feed your family, then it's less wrong.





I don't think I would be upset at Jackson and Weaver getting in at all (I am not aware of weavers accomplishments to be enshrined, but Jackson certainly had the criteria to be admitted)
Reply:I say it like this, all three deserve to be enshrined on their on the the feild accomplishments. If they want to note that they werre banned from baseball for gambling then do it but let all three into the hall. Pete Rose is a horrible person and should NEVER be allowed to be involved with baseball again but at the same time he should be enshrined for his amazing accomplishments.
Reply:i agree with you shoeless joe jackson should have been in the hall of fame he could have been so much better and he did better then anyone in the entire world series i mean i know he was offered the money but he refused it and almost single handedly won some of the games that he had played in the world series you can go to one of my friends sites to support him but atm i forget what it is called
Reply:I thouroghly agree. Weaver and Jackson were both acquitted in a court of law. They deserve induction. Rose on the other hand, finally admitted his gambling and cheating I would continue to leave him out until his death. I also agree a lifetime ban should end when one's lifetime ends.
Reply:jackson and weaver should be in. rose should also be in for what he did on the field.
Reply:Jackson and Weaver were as guilty as sin and they knew it. Just because they were acquitted doesn't change that fact.





Besides. Who in the hell is going to go through all that trouble just to put two guilty dead men in the hall of fame? Nobody.





As for Pete Rose, he is a dead issue that people really need to get over and stop bringing him up. Like Jackson and Weaver this to is a dead issue.
Reply:Good grief, can't we have some standards? Just a few?!





Pete Rose was betting on games he was coaching, for heaven's sake. How is it hard to understand that he should be banned for life? If he had any class, he would agree and be a man about it.





Shoeless Joe and George Buck Weaver should have more of a chance, but for the integrity of the game, let's just leave it the way it is. If we let them in, we will have to listen to Pete Rose more than we already do ..............and any amount is too much.





I do agree with you in principle................they got a rough deal.
Reply:You make the common mistake that the ineligibility of all three men, plus the other six Black Sox, plus a few others (Hal Chase the best known), are "lifetime" expulsions. Not so -- they are "permanent", a duration which has not yet expired for any of them.





No one much forgets Jackson; he and Rose are irrelevantly but continuously linked by the apologists (of either one), and Jackson benefits from having been portrayed, in a starring role, in a treacly, soppy movie about his plight. Point, the situations of Rose and of Jackson %26amp; Co. have nothing to do with each other, but the apologists have no ideas other than "whaaa! it's unfair to BOTH of them" in the dead hope that quantity of whining will overwhelm the total lack of quality for their positions. It does not work, it never will work, but they keep at it.





Jackson was complicit, he knew what was going on, and this is more than enough to warrant his status (MLB Rule 21 spells it out). His testimony, available on the website cited, makes this crystal clear. So was Weaver, although he at least tried to notify authorities about the plot. Rose did his deeds as well.





The charges brought in court against the Black Sox were not the exact same reasons why Landis expelled them, and the commissioner doesn't have the same burden-of-proof requirements that does the law. One can make a case that Weaver was railroaded, and really that would be the place to start on any (pointless) quest to reinstate any of the Black Sox, but everyone wants to start with Jackson, and that is, by now (nearly 90 years), a proven loser of an approach.

plants flowers