Squanto wrote:
I've read plenty about this. Last I checked, I'm a few years older than you. I was reading about baseball history when you were in preschool. Enough with the the "I'm smarter than you" posts. They're getting fucking annoying. Copying a passage from Wikipedia doesn't make you some kind of baseball historian.
He admitted multiple times, in multiple situations (not just the grand jury), that he was part of the conspiracy. Only after everything was said and done did he start to proclaim his innocence. In addition, his story changed many times, which tends not to happen when people are innocent. Even if you presume that he wasn't an active participant, he clearly knew it was happening. Their 3rd baseman was banned for exactly that reason.
There's lots of consternation about that $5,000 being tossed on the hotel room floor as some kind of proof that Jackson didn't accept the bribe. However, Jackson has never explained where the money actually went. Wouldn't you expect an innocent man to say he gave it back?
The attempted meeting with Comiskey also shows he knew about the conspiracy. He either wanted to out it to Comiskey, or prove that he wasn't part of it. Either position legitimizes his ban.
I'm willing the defer to the people that investigated things at the time and not look at evidence 90 years later through a clouded view of people that want him reinstated because he was so good.
no, but it supports my point.
he was acquitted, meaning there wasnt enough proof to convict him. but after unethical handling of the case, he admitted his guilt, despite trying to clear his name for the remainder of his life, and facts supporting his innocence. innocent until proven guilty, which he clearly wasnt. ill take it for what thats worth.
guilty by association, fair enough, even though he supposedly tried to expose it. doesnt exactly equal a reason for a fair ban.
feel free to believe what you want, but no, your view isnt any more valid then mine.