rusty

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

How do you figure? By what yardstick are you measuring my use of the term "alleged?" In a court of law, all "conspirators" were found to be not guilty on all counts, including conspiracy to commit a confidence game. The presiding judge even complimented the jury for what he felt to be a "just verdict" after all evidence and testimony had been given. At that time, and to his death, Buck Weaver denied any knowledge of a fix, and certainly any involvement, and continued to petition MLB to reinstate him.

I wasn't referring to whether all persons banned deserved to be banned, but whether the fix was in on the 1919 series. It was, no doubt, no need to use words like "alleged"... unless, of course, you are considering the various confessions, including that of Shoeless Joe, to be invalid.

The court only addressed what was illegal and whether the prosecution proved a crime (or, considering it was a jury verdict), whether the jury felt the guilty verdict was "just" considering the way players were treated and all the rest. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as a finding of innocence. Just ask the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

No matter how you weasle it, Bonds and his ilk do not deserve HOF entry, IMO.