Baseball players slurking out of grand jury rooms, with league officials expressing shock at confessions of behavior "not in the best interest of baseball." Widely-covered congressional hearings, with grandstanding politicians proposing new laws to purify the national pastime.
Huge newspaper headlines about the case—on the front page, not the sports page.
The BALCO steroid scandal of 2003-2007, right?
Wrong—it was the Black Sox scandal of 1919-1921, in which eight players accused of fixing the World Series were permanently banned from baseball.
As they say in France, "plus 'a change, plus c'est la m'me chose"—the more things change, they more they remain the same.
Most of us think we know the basics of the Black Sox story. Gamblers led by Arnold Rothstein bribed eight Chicago White Sox players to lose the 1919 World Series. It had never occurred to team owners that highly paid professional athletes would betray the game by corrupting it. In response, league officials hired Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as baseball's first Commissioner—and gave him orders to clean up the game at any cost.
But much of what we "know" is wrong. Read Eight Men Out, the classic 1963 book on the scandal by Eliot Asinof, and you'll see that the parallels with the BALCO case are almost perfect.
Fact: Gamblers had been tampering with games for years before the 1919 World Series—and owners and league officials knew it. They didn't do anything to stop it, because they knew a scandal would be bad for business. Two of many examples:
- In 1917, a young reliever named Jimmy Ring came in to pitch in a game for Cincinnati. His first baseman, Hal Chase, offered him $50 (at least five percent of Ring's annual salary) to deliberately lose the game. Ring refused, and reported Chase to his manager Christy Mathewson. Mathewson immediately suspended Chase for the rest of the season and brought charges against Chase to John Heydler, the President of the National League. But Heydler acquitted Chase on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient—without launching an investigation or hiring detectives to look into relationships between gamblers and players.
- A few hours after Cincinnati beat Chicago in the first game of the 1919 World Series, Black Sox manager "Kid" Gleason told his owner, Charles Comiskey, that the game had been lost on purpose—and that the Series was probably fixed. Comiskey, unable to sleep, woke up the Presidents of the National and American Leagues at two and three in the morning—and the Presidents did nothing. Why? It was bad for business for the public to worry about the integrity of the game. Comiskey hired all the suspected players to play for the White Sox again in 1920, and only suspended them when the newspapers broke the story of the fix near the end of the season.
So too with steroids in baseball: The owners and league officials knew players were juicing...but did nothing about it until it was front-page news.
Fact: Mark McGwire was caught taking androstenedione—which raises the level of testosterone in the body—during his record-breaking 1998 season. The owners never raised an objection. Why? For a sport trying to recover from a players strike that canceled the 1994 World Series, having McGwire break the home run record was good for business.
The Black Sox players took money from gamblers because Comiskey was a skinflint who kept their salaries pitifully low. The "reserve clause," written into every major league contract until 1975, made it impossible for the Black Sox players to negotiate with other teams.
Shoeless Joe Jackson, one of the greatest outfielders to ever play the game, made only $6000 in 1919. Edd Roush, an outfielder for Cincinnati, made $10,000—and Jackson knew it.
As the oldest professional team sport in the United States, baseball has a long history of unfair labor practices. That legacy continues to haunt the game today. Until the BALCO scandal forced their hand, the Major League Baseball Players Association resisted attempts to institute drug testing because they didn't trust the owners with the information. The owners, for their part, have cried crocodile tears about steroids—but only after drug use began to generate negative headlines.
Baseball and its most cherished records have been forever stained by the steroid scandal, just as the game was stained by the fix in 1919. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
For further reading:
Eight Men Out, by Eliot Asinof, 1963 (still available in paperback), about the Black Sox Scandal.
Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports, 2006, by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams.
comments (17) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 year ago
What does the book say (if anything) about Shoeless Joe throwing the WS?
I've always found this to be the most interesting part of the tale...that Joe was such a competitor that he couldn't bare the thought of throwing games. He did hit .375 in the series, with a homer and 6 RBIS, and legend has it he also made some awesome plays in the field.
You point out in your article that "Shoeless Joe Jackson, one of the greatest outfielders to ever play the game, made only $6000 in 1919. Edd Roush, an outfielder for Cincinnati, made $10,000 and Jackson knew it." Does the book imply this? I had always been under the impression that Joe couldn't read or write, and didn't really know what he was doing when he signed on with the other players to throw the series.
Would be curious to hear your thoughts thanks for the great read!
about 1 year ago
How quickly people forget the past! David Brooks of the NYT recently wrote a great article about how people in England are much more in touch with the past and relate it to current events as part of their daily decision making. Too bad more Americans are unable to contextualize the current 'Steroid Scandal'.
The game has been tarnished with each generation in one way or another, and I honestly don't even think that Steroids makes it into the top three or four greatest scandals of all time. But the one consistency is exactly what you mentioned: owners who are too afraid to rock the boat and hurt business. Is there a solution to this issue? Probably not.
about 1 year ago
One key difference between the Black Sox scandal and the Balco scandal:
While both involved threats to the integrity of the game, Black Sox players sought to lose games purposefully for financial gain, whereas suspected steroid users were doing whatever they could to gain a competitive edge.
It's win (or play well and get a fat contract) at any cost vs. not playing your best and throwing the game to make a buck.
I'll take the former over the latter any day.
about 1 year ago
Thanks Jim. This is one of the best articles I've
read on Bleacher Report.
Major League Baseball is a business that has been marred by corruption throughout its history.
I believe that during the Steroid Era, MLB has suffered from poor leadership and is in dire need of responsible individuals (owners/new commissioner) to start doing the right thing and act in the best long term interests of the game. Recently, all they've concerned themselves with is covering their own asses.
Barry Bonds has said many times, the last time he had fun playing baseball was in college. Somewhat telling perhaps.
about 1 year ago
I'd like to say it wasn't so, but I'm afraid it is. According to the book, Jackson testified to the Grand Jury that he'd been at several meetings where the eight ballplayers had agreed to fix the series, and that he'd taken $5000. "he told the jury how he hadn't played good baseball, despite his incredible .375 World Series average, and record 12 base hits."
Jackson--and the other Black and White Sox-- all clearly knew that Comiskey was a skinflint and underpaying them. Jackson didn't have to be literate to know that.
However, it's also true that Jackson was taken advantage of because he was an illiterate hick. He agreed to testify to the Grand Jury after having been assured he'd be "taken care of" for telling the truth--and the lawyer for the White Sox got him to sign a Waiver of Immunity before his testimony even though he knew Jackson was not represented by counsel and not capable of reading what he was signing. Jackson's wife was literate and relatively sophisticated. Before the 1920 season, Jackson (and the other champion White Sox) were holding out for more money. Jackson received a visit from a White Sox representative, offering him a 3 year contract for $9000 per year. Jackson said he'd sign it if it did not include the then-standard clause saying that the team could cut him without pay on 10 days' notice. The team representative lured Jackson away from home and had him sign the contract when he wife wasn't around to read it, and in fact the 10 day cut clause was in the contract. After he was banned from baseball, Jackson sued Comiskey to receive the remainder of his three year contract, claiming he had been deliberately misled, and Comiskey eventually settled out of court.
about 1 year ago
Now dare I ask the question: given that he took money to throw the World Series, does this guy belong in the Hall of Fame?
Joe Jackson has the third highest batting average of all time. And, despite what he says, it's hard to believe that one could hit a record number of base hits in a World Series where they didn't try their hardest.
I say let him in. He's a baseball legend and the fact that he made a terrible mistake shouldn't keep him out of the Hall.
Other thoughts?
about 1 year ago
I have always thought it absurd that the Hall of Fame denies admission to people like Pete Rose-- who had more hits than anyone in baseball history-- or Shoeless Joe, who had its third highest average. It's the Hall of FAME, and election should be based on the best and most famous playing, not moralistic judgments.
about 1 year ago
Ban them from working for Major League Baseball...let them in the HOF.
about 1 year ago
It's too bad the penalty for throwing games/gambling is a lifetime ban...
Those frauds should never sniff the HOF.
about 1 year ago
Good article...but for those interested in reading a well researched, more up to date book than "Eight Men Out"....I would suggest Gene Carney's "Burying The Black Sox", which is about how MLB and the owners sought to cover up the fix...as if it never happened. Carney's book has something Asinof's "Eight Men Out" doesn't have.....FOOTNOTES!!!
One other point that should be made....when Comiskey signed the 7 suspected players (Gandil, the 8th man...did not come back for the 1920 season). He gave them all hefty raises...some of them receiving 100 percent increases in their salaries (possible hush money...so that Comiskey could get the fix swept under the carpet as previous fixes had been done). If we are going to keep Jackson out of the Hall of Fame for his guilty knowledge of the affair (I believe the evidence of his on field performance clears him of any on-field participation)....then we must also kick Comiskey OUT of the Hall of Fame. Comiskey, in my research.....knew more about the fix than Joe did and unlike Joe....he HAD the power to stop the Series before the fix could be pulled off. Again...great article...but if folks really want more info into the fix and it's subsequent attempted cover up by officials.....please read Gene's book (available via our web site at:
http://www.blackbetsy.com/sjjbooks.htm ).
Mike Nola
Official Historian
Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame
http://www.blackbetsy.com
about 1 year ago
There is some evidence that Comiskey (and AL Prez Ban Johnson) both knew that the 1919 Series had been tampered with, BEFORE Game One. Joe Jackson said in later interviews he tried to warn Comiskey, and when he showed his team the $5,000 he'd been given, right after the Series, he was rebuffed. They didn't want hard evidence.
Jackson denied attending any meetings, and was never placed at a meeting with gamblers, in the testimony of the gamblers (Burns, Maharg) or anyone else.
Jackson's statement to the grand jury, accessible now on the internet to all, was not available to Eliot Asinof in 1963. Nor did he have access to the 1924 trial material (Jackson sued the White Sox, forcing them to prove he'd done something to deserve being fired; the jury believed Jackson over Comiskey, by 11-1.)
The parallel with Barry Bonds is tricky, but in both cases, the star LFs (en route to Cooperstown) were condemned by LEAKED grand jury testimony -- in Jackson's case, the leaks were NOT what he said. So let's not be quick to condemn Barry, till we see the transcripts.
about 1 year ago
I think it is truly awesome that you guys over at Shoeless Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame have dedicated so much time and resources to a cause you feel strongly about.
Whether or not you think Shoeless Joe belongs in the HOF (and I surely do), you really have to admire how much passion you guys have for the game of baseball, and how badly you want to bring justice to the game where you think it was deprived.
For those of you who haven't already: do yourself a favor and check out this website: http://www.blackbetsy.com
It's got all the information on Shoeless Joe you could ever imagine, and an easy way to write a letter to Bud Selig to get Shoeless Joe removed from MLB's "ineligible" list.
about 1 year ago
Both of you, thanks for your comments. I'm glad you liked my original Bleacher Report article, and thrilled that you noticed it on what I think is a cool new web site.
A couple of points. First, as I pointed out in a previous response to a question posed by someone reading my article, I believe that Shoeless Joe belongs in the Hall of Fame, just as I believe Pete Rose does. They were all-time great players, undeniably famous, and it's a hall of FAME. It should not be a hall of moral judgments, but rather should be a hall to memorialize baseball skill, as well as worthy contributions to the game by executives (such as Branch Rickey, for example). Shoeless Joe Jackson would have been famous and a shoe-in (pun intended) for the Hall even if he hadn't been banned from baseball...he's even more famous as a result of being banned. I also think Comiskey should be there...he was a huge innovator in the game for decades, long before the Black Sox scandal...I don't approve of his actions in the scandal, but I don't believe that should prevent his previous contributions from being worthy of membership in the Hall. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I also previously made it clear that I believe Comiskey (as well as the other owners, and the Presidents of the American and National Leagues) should bear a large part of the blame for the Black Sox scandal, first because Comiskey's skinflint ways helped provoke the players to throw the Series, and second because he did not stop the Series when he learned about the Fix, did not immediately go public with what he knew, did not bench the suspected players, and re-hired them for the 1920 season without saying a word to the public.
That said, Shoeless Joe's own grand jury testimony (available on the web, as you pointed out) makes it clear that he accepted $5000 in cash from Lefty Williams to throw the series. Whether he played his hardest or not can be debated, but whether he accepted money from people who believed he would help throw the Series is established in his own words. By accepting money and giving other players the impression that he would help them throw the Series, he contributed to the Fix, in my opinion. However, I do not believe that any of the players should have been permanently banned from baseball then, simply because both leagues had tolerated thrown games in the past without warning players that fixes wouldn't be tolerated in the future. I believe the Black Sox players should have been suspended for something like a year and then reinstated, and that all players should thenceforth have been put on notice that any consorting with gamblers or evidence that they threw a game would in the future result in their being permanently banned from baseball. But, banning them permanently after the Black Sox scandal, however flagrant that particular Fix was, when the baseball authorities had knowing tolerated thrown games in the past, seems grossly unfair.
The real point of my BleacherReport article was to compare the way the baseball power structure managed the Black Sox scandal with they way they managed the steroid scandal 85 years later. In both cases, they took no action (to limit gambling in baseball, or to limit steroid use) until adverse front-page publicity forced them to react. And in both cases, the baseball authorities made the players out to be the fall guys, rather than sharing in the blame for creating the environment that caused both scandals. Barry and Shoeless Joe got into my article because they're the most famous players accused in each scandal, but it's the response of the baseball officials to both scandals that I was comparing, not the players themselves. At the end of the day, the baseball owners did in both cases what they believed was in their best business interests, whatever the consequences to the players' reputations or livelihoods. That is sad, but unfortunately not surprising.
about 1 year ago
Man, what a great article and discussion thread.
Devil's advocate time (far too much agreement going on here ... this thread needs a contentious SOB).
Recently, more and more people have started putting blame on MLB and the owners for their part in the steroids scandal (and this thread does the same with regards to the Black Sox scandal). But, really - what have they done that deserves any blame?
"In both cases, they took no action (to limit gambling in baseball, or to limit steroid use) until adverse front-page publicity forced them to react."
Yes, owners and the powers that be have a history of protecting their own asses first. They are protecting their jobs, their investments, and their business. But at the same time, are they not indirectly protecting the players as well? And let's get one thing straight here - it IS the players that ultimately made the wrong decision. It wasn't Comiskey that accepted money from gamblers to throw the World Series. And it wasn't Selig that took illegal controlled substances without a proper prescription. So they try to sweep things under the rug. If it all blows over - the players get off completely free. They committed the crime, and they get off no questions asked. I don't think many of us here have jobs where their bosses would do that for them, whatever the intentions.
"And in both cases, the baseball authorities made the players out to be the fall guys, rather than sharing in the blame for creating the environment that caused both scandals."
Well who else should be the fall guy? Creating the environment? It isn't like MLB was distributing steroids. That is creating the environment. Standing idly by might not be honorable, but it doesn't constitute creating the environment for steroid use. Is it Selig's job to enforce drug laws in the United States as established by the FDA? The owners? They may have indirectly received the benefits from steroid use - but there is no law that requires you to report a drug user. They tried to sweep things under the rug. Selfish though the intentions may have been, they still tried. And when push comes to shove, people should be held accountable for their actions.
about 1 year ago
The drugs taken by most athletes fall into three basic categories: steroids; growth hormone, and erythropeotin.
Generally, these drugs are not illegal under FDA. Human growth hormone and erythropeotin are FDA-licensed drugs, and any physician may prescribe them for any purpose that physician chooses to prescribe them for. They may be banned by the International Olympic committee, but that does not make the taking of them illegal.
It's not at all clear that the steroids taken by the BALCO athletes were illegal to posess or consume under FDA. These were NOT controlled substances, like Heroin. The "clear" taken by BALCO athletes (and alleged to be taken by Barry Bonds)was a designer steriod that wasn't banned by FDA at the time. Notice that no one is talking about Barry Bonds being potentially indicted for taking an illegal drug. Instead, the speculation is that he could be indicted for perjury--lying under oath to the Grand Jury--if he lied about his drug use.
Clearly the owners of Major League Baseball did not take the steroids. I just can't stand hypocrisy. What they did was look the other way as the use of steroids grew because it was good for their business, without trying hard to clean up the game. They did very little to clean up the game until front page headlines hit.
I feel much more sympathetic towards the Black Sox
athletes than the current multi-millionaire baseball players. The Black Sox were underpaid and the reserve clause held them as chattel to the owners, in clear restraint of trade. With the exception of Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, very few of the athletes of the era could retire comfortably. Many of them, such as Shoeless Joe, were completely uneducated, many without high school degrees. The owners exploited them, and created the climate where a bribe from a gambler looked like big money to them, without consequence.
about 1 year ago
... all anabolic steroids are now controlled substances classified as Schedule III drugs. This includes prohormones (such as androstenedione) along with all other typical anabolic steroids (like testosterone and HGH). They are not illegal themselves, but their possession is indeed illegal without a valid prescription. Little known factoids - prescriptions for these drugs cannot be refilled more than 5 times in 6 months. Other drugs under similar government control are barbiturates, amphetamines, and strong codeine preparations. http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm#b
The exact classifications have indeed changed in recent years. But there is a reason these players weren't open about using these drugs - they are not readily available substances that you can legally buy in your local GNC. Most require a prescription. A VALID prescription, implying an actual medical reason. Doctors have lost their licenses for prescribing steroids merely for body building purposes. They didn't go to jail - but they did lose their jobs. I don't like double standards, so maybe baseball players should suffer the same.
about 1 year ago
... I do understand where you are coming from. I was merely putting forth an argument for argument's sake. Namely that - even in their own selfishness - the owners are indirectly protecting the players. If the owners had their way, everything would have just blown over, and no one gets in trouble. The media, on the other hand, are the ones who brought everything to light, and forced the owners' hands. So they share some blame. Further, you could say that fans contributed to the environment by "loving the longball" so to speak. Heck, if you try, you can blame pretty much anyone you want. But does the blame really need to be spread around? Perhaps people should just be held accountable for their actions?
write a new comment