We all have different perspectives, and that’s part of the fun - but to me, proof of gambling on baseball (and/or throwing games) as a player is grounds for exclusion to the HoF/GoG as a player. It’s my understanding, even before Tank’s nomination, that Shoeless Joe did neither - which is why I support his candidacy. (And BA will have to prove to me that PR didn’t bet on baseball while playing, else I will not support that candidacy - if PR “only” bet on baseball on a manager, then I’m inclined to separate that from his playing days for the purpose of him being inducted into GoG as a player.) But direct or indirect knowledge of wrongdoing simply cannot be grounds for exclusion, in my view. In that very narrow application, it seems like few ballplayers would be eligible. Is Babe Ruth aware of anyone (including himself) drinking during Prohibition? If so, I guess that’s grounds for exclusion - as he kept off-field secrets that would’ve impacted the game, especially if guys came to work drunk (like Mickey Mantle, for starters), which is surely a discredit to the game. But even if they didn’t, breaking federal laws by drinking - and thus negatively affecting their physical attributes is certainly a discredit to the game. What of the “greenies” - the rampant amphetamine use, apparently in place for roughly the past 50 years or so?

And as for the past twenty years, The Steroid Era is The Steroid Era (how profound, eh?). We can lament that less than 100% of the players were taking them and thus there was an unfair advantage to those that didn’t, but my belief is greater than 50% did - and my additional belief is that they didn’t make a very good player into a GoG candidate. They may’ve allowed a marginal player to get a ML job (over a non-user, regrettably). They may’ve allowed players (good to great) play a bit longer. But they did not make a guy more talented - so for example, I have no problem inducting a guy like Mark McGwire. I couldn’t care less that he took some stuff - and ignoring that many of the pitchers he faced would’ve been juiced as well, the guy hit 583 HRs and no drug can make a guy do that who wouldn’t have anyhow. Did the drugs help him get a few extra feet on his HRs? Perhaps - but seriously, how many of his HRs needed “a few extra feet”? Did the drugs help him get/stay healthy? Perhaps - but if laser-correction eye surgery had been available to Jim Rice in the 80s, he may’ve extended his career enough to gain HoF (and GoG) acceptance. Lots “what-if”s. All we can go by is the results on the field. And back to The Steroid Era: Too many guys were on the stuff, and arguably 100% of them knew “something” during that time - and as a result, we can note with disappointment the era in which they played… but we cannot deny an entire generation of players rightful consideration for induction as a result.

Well… I suppose we “can”. I just don’t think we should.

Is that indeed your position (if you choose to be consistent, that is)?

Yes, his performance in 1919 was not indicative of someone on the take, but it’s pretty clear from all accounts that at least he knew about it. IMHO, anyone who doesn’t do the right thing (ie, let someone with higher authority know what was going on), he’s as much of a disgrace as those who actually did take money.

Everything he did on the field was indeed a credit to baseball - and agreed on the harm Landis did to the game - but keeping that secret off the field discredits him completely.