The Rant

Here goes. I do not see how it is fair that athletes who are injecting themselves with drugs are not punished for their reckless and illicit behavior. Joe Jackson was thrown out of baseball forever for a crime he was never convicted of. There are so many current baseball players breaking records, but it is not because of talent. It is because they use steroids in order to increase their athletic ability. At least Jackson possessed natural talent instead of getting it from a shot. I understand that the commissioner wanted to set a precedent for future players, by punishing the White Sox, but why did he not go after other players. Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle were guilty of excessive drinking and philandering. The two of them used to show up to games drunk and hung-over. Where is the fairness here? These two men were never even warned that if they didn't quit their bad habits they would be benched from games. 

The last person to have been banned from baseball forever was Pete Rose, former play and coach. He used to place bets on his team, which he publicly admitted. He was banned from baseball in 1989. It has been 19 years since baseball has said goodbye to one if its players. Of course there was one player in 1996 who was banned, but later an advocate got him back into the game. I just don't understand how Joe Jackson, a baseball legend was banned for something he did not do. His statistics show that he played very well during the 1919 World Series. Statisticians have all agreed that he played better during the series than he did in the regular baseball season. The commissioner had no idea what he was doing, when he decided to throw Jackson out of baseball.

Up until the day he died Jackson pleaded innocent. Fifty years after he was banned he gave an interview and in the interview he mentions several times that he was not guilty and never engaged in illegal activities surrounding baseball. There was no evidence to support the fact that Jackson partook in throwing the game. Even with an incompetent attorney, he was still absolved, but again I say, he never did anything to put him on trial. 

I just think that it is so fair that there are all these baseball players like jason Giambi, who think that they are big shots. They aren't, they didn't do anything, they didn't break any records, they cheated. The worst thing someone can do is lie, and that is what these players on steroids have been doing. They have been lying to their fans, and to Major League Baseball. It's disgusting that such an innocent and honest player such as Joe, was kicked out of baseball for something he refused to take part in.

Just the Facts

1. At the end of the trial the jury ruled that Jackson and his team were innocent, therefore being acquitted and absolved of all charges, or at least in theory. The commissioner of baseball disagreed and threw the men out of the game forever, because he felt the need to set a precedent for future players.

2. If Joe's statistics are closely scrutinized, one would see that his batting average during the game was .401, while his overall batting average for the regular season was .365. He actually played better during the World Series. He also did not have a single error through the entire series.

3. Joe Jackson did approach the owner of the Chicago White Sox, Charles Comiskey, and asked to be benched for the series. He was ignored by the owner, but vowed that he would perform his best during the World Series.

4. The commissioner of baseball did not have the authority to overrule a court hearing. He had given himself too much power. No other commissioner had ever held that much power. Jackson accepted the punishment with stoic dignity. He became so disillusioned with the game that he left without a fight.Even though there was no proof that he was one of the players responsible for the game, he knew that it was a battle he was going to lose. 

5. Luckily, the commissioner of baseball has become a little less empowered. They no longer hold enough power to ban baseball players for illegally using steroids. The last player to have been banned from baseball was Steve Howe in 1992, shortly after he was reinstated and played for another four years. The commissioner at the time was Fay Vincent.

6. There is still a lot of speculation as to whether or not "Shoeless" Joe Jackson actually took part in the gambling. There was no evidence, and many believe that he was merely a victim of circumstance. His roommate "Lefty" Ted Williams was the ring leader, and after a bag of $20,000 was found in their room they were both accused. 

7. Up until the day he died, Joe defended himself. He was an honest man from Pickens County, South Carolina. He was never formally educated because his parents wanted him to work to make money for the family.

8. The last player to have been banned for life from baseball was Pete Rose. In 1988 he was suspended for alleged gambling, and finally banned forever a year later after a jury convicted him.

9. Currently Barry Bonds, former player for the San Francisco Giants, was suspected to have been using steroids after he broke the home-run record, held by Hank Aaron. He admitted in front of the grand jury to using a clear liquid and cream, given to him by his trainer. He allegedly thought they were flax seed oil and arthritis balm. Further investigation of Bonds' medical history led authorities to his former girlfriend, who explained that Bonds did blame an elbow injury on steroid use. Bonds is now on trial for perjury. 

10. The integrity of baseball is fading. Baseball should uphold laws and courtroom verdicts. baseball is in no way above the laws that govern this country, a different set of rules does not apply to baseball. So if perjury is illegal in the American system it is illegal for financial executives, fashion designers, doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs, as well as baseball players. However, the people who stand to make money from the use of athletes see fit to bend the rules so that they no longer represent what they were intended to in the first place.

What the Experts Say

1. "Baseball failed to keep faith with me... it read that if found innocent of any wrongdoing, I would be reinstated. If found guilty, I would be banned for life. I was found innocent, and I was still banned for life."

-"Shoeless" Joe Jackson, 50 years after the 1919 World Series

2. "I copied Jackson's style because I thought eh was the greatest hitter I had evr seen, the greatest natural hitter I ever saw. He's the guy who made me a hitter."

- Babe Ruth, professional baseball player

3. "Though Mantle had been sober for more than a year, 42 years of drinking caught up to him on May 28th."

-Steve Wulf, Time Magazine Journalist

4."Joe's 1919 World Series statistics speak for themselves. Compare the statistics of the other players and you will see, joe Jackson played his heart out and played to win."

-Jay Bennett, statistician

5. "That, however, apparently would describe most of Chicago. When Shoeless Joe tried to report it, even asking to be benched for the series, he was ignored."

-Eliot Asinof, author of Eight Men Out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series

6. "Jackson, one of the game's most brilliant batters, hit over .400 during the 1911 season."

-1950 newspaper

7. "In most states, both state and federal laws prohibit anabolic steroids, and a person can be prosecuted under either."

-Joseph Parkins, retired attorney

8. "Yes. We spoke and educated three or four players there... Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, I van Rodriguez, I injected them. Absolutely."

-Jose Canseco, baseball player, also author of Juiced

9."God knows I gave my best in baseball at al times and no man on earth can truthfully judge me otherwise."

-"Shoeless" Joe Jackson

10. "He could run, hit, and throw the best of them in both leagues, but he lacked judgement, education, and common sense."

-Ted Williams, fellow player on the Chicago White Sox

11. "The guy got a raw deal, he should be in the Hall of Fame."

-Jay Bennett, statistician

Subtopic 1

I wasn't quite sure what to pick for my first subtopic, but after perusing my notes, I realized that I had the perfect argument. Joe Jackson was in fact acquitted from any charges that he faced, after authorities alleged that he and his fellow players had thrown the game. He played on the Chicago White Sox, who made it all the way to the World Series. Jackson and his eight other teammates were approached by a gambler offering them $20,000 if they would "throw" the game. After being asked three times Jackson supposedly gave in and agreed to lose the game. Once authorities heard this the players were investigated and put on trial, losing a game intentionally is a felony. In Jackson's defense he had questionable legal counsel, however he was still acquitted along with all of his teammates. To the player's dismay, commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned all of the nine players from baseball for life. The commissioner did not have the authority to overrule a trial presided over by a judge and jury. Landis argued that he was trying to set a precedent for any future players involved in gambling, and he did. He managed to ban several more players form baseball while he was commissioner. Compared to punishment meted out today for serious crimes committed by major league ball players, this was excessive.

Pro v Con

I really do think that when reviewing the pros and cons of this topic the cons drastically outweigh the pros. When Joe Jackson's punishment is compared to those of current baseball players using steroids or accused of domestic abuse, it really doesn't seem fair that one of the greatest ball players who ever lived was banned from baseball and prohibited from being inducted into the baseball hall of fame. Jackson didn't hurt anyone, and baseball gurus concur that Joe played exceptionally well during that infamous World Series game. I do however agree that Jackson should have been penalized for what he did, bribery after all is a felony. A precedent needed to be set for future baseball players, and the baseball association did not want children to lionize Joe the way they did other players.

When juxtaposing contemporary baseball players with those of the early nineteen hundreds, ramifications were much more severe eighty years ago. Today players are getting away with the illegal use of performance enhancing drugs and domestic violence. As long as the players admit to using steroids nothing can happen to them. Andy Pettitte for example, admitted to using performance enhancing drugs, and therefore he won't be punished since he told the truth. Is it really fair that just because a player admits to wrongdoing he isn't punished? I for one do not think that is fair, using steroids is the same as cheating. It gives the baseball player an unfair advantage over players who are going to the gym and practicing seven days a week. Yes, Jackson did deserve to be penalized, he committed a crime, but it was not fair that just for one minor mistake he was thrown out of baseball for life. It is not just that baseball players today are walking through the system without so much as a warning. It doesn't seem that Jackson's punishment was comparatively commensurate with his crime.

What I am arguing is that I do not think it was and is fair that Joe Jackson, one of the greatest baseball players in history was banned from playing baseball for life, after he was supposedly exonerated from his crime. Fast forward 85 years, and the issues have changed, however ball players are still in the limelight and not necessarily in a good way. The crimes have changed, and so have punishments. Baseball players today have gotten into the habit of using steroids, which is illegal, unless prescribed by a physician. Players such as Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte have admitted to using these drugs. Steroid use is a felony, so is "throwing" a game. I do not see how it is fair that 85 years ago players acquitted of felonies were banned form baseball for life, but players in the new millennium using steroids have just been at most fined, and suspended from 20 games.

Topic Overview

In 1919 the White Sox baseball team made it all the way to the World Series. One of the team's star players was "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. During the World Series he was approached by gamblers with an offer of $10,000, if he would "throw" the game. The first two times he was asked, he said no, but was later convinced by a fellow teammate, to join in with the rest of his team. After he and his eight other teammates purposely lost the game, the authorities found out, and put Jackson and his teammates on trial. They were all acquitted. If found guilty they would all have been banned from baseball for life. The problem was commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis ignored the acquittal, and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson was banned from major league baseball for life.

If compared to today's baseball players and their use of steroids, it does not seem fair that even with his acquittal Jackson was thrown out of major league baseball. Current players such as Jason Giambi admitted to using steroids in front of the grand jury and he is still playing for the Yankees. At least Jackson possessed natural talent as opposed to Giambi who used illicit drugs in order to improve his athletic ability. Giambi admitted to using steroids in 2003,and five years later he is still playing for the New York Yankees. Where is the fairness in that? How is it that just for losing one game Joe Jackson was thrown out of baseball and 21st century baseball players are getting away with using growth hormones and illegal drugs?