[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I am unswayed by the observation that a player's actual stats through the series is evidence that he was or was not in on the fix.

Here was Jackson's line for the Series:

AB: 32
H: 12
2B: 3
HR: 1
RBI: 6
SO: 2
BAvg: .375

It would seem he was more on the side of helping his team win than not helping them win. In fact, of all the batters on both teams, he statistically helped his team more than any of the others. If the charge is that Jackson somehow held back, then that sure sets a high standard for how well he was expected to perform. You do better than anyone else in the Series, and that's still not good enough?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Jackson not playing to win is not on the list I provided, is it?

You made the distinction between Jackson and Weaver, saying Weaver should've only gotten a suspension. The review I cited indicated that it was determined in the civil suit that Jackson did not receive the $5000 in advance, and was not in on the conspiracy.

Eleven of twelve jurors believed Jackson had played every game to win. And that he had not received the $5000 from Williams until the Series was over. And that he had not been in on the conspiracy.

Your points about Jackson:

A) Knew that the fix was in before the start of the Series and knew the identities of those involved in the scheme.
>> No different from Weaver.

B) Accepted a $5000 payment delivered to him at his hotel room by those who recruited him and fully understood that this money was in exchange for his participation in the conspiracy.
>> Disputed in the quote I gave.

C) Played in games where he knew that the outcome was not being truly contested by his own club.
>> No different from Weaver.

D) Kept confidence with the conspirators throughout the length of the Series and revealed the fix to no one until forced to do so before a grand jury.
>> No different from Weaver.

So then what you're left with is that Jackson was as culpable as Weaver, whom you regarded as only deserving a suspension.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

That popular sentiment swayed a jury toward a star ballplayer isn't the sort of evidence I was referencing.

Isn't it appropriate though that he be judged by a jury of his peers, and not a dictatorial commissioner?