Quote:
Originally Posted by Y0DA55
I was just watching Ken Burns' "Baseball" for the first time and I just got to the Black Sox Scandal. Watching this made me do a little research and ponder this a bit, and I have 2 observations.
1) This is a recent article in the Chicago Tribune:
In defense of 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson -- chicagotribune.com
In an answer to whomever posted about it before, I don't know if all the information in the book is accurate.
2) Right before the whole Black Sox Saga in "Baseball", they mention the unrest that players were having with the owners, especially with the fact that the owners could essentially pay them whatever they want and get to keep them forever.
The players weren't organized back then. I don't believe they had a players union (and if they did, it wasn't very powerful). So how is trying to "get theirs" in the form of gambling differ that much from striking? I understand that they are two totally different things, but they both were essentially used for the same purpose, so that they could get paid what they think they are worth. |
Striking is honest. There's no shady manipulation of the fans.
Fixing a game for financial gain is dishonest. Its like stealing in my opinion.