Clipping:A long discussion of game selling
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, August 3, 1873 |
|---|---|
| Text | There has been in almost every quarter of late a widely-spread feeling in regard to the honesty of certain players. It is too universal to pass lightly without notice, and, in view of some assertions and suspicions, we consider it a part of our duty to make some suggestions, and give some general advice to those whose tongues wag too freely regarding those who are unable to defend themselves. There are more instances of the old song–“Give a dog a bad name and hang him”–in base-ball circles than are exactly pleasant to contemplate. To begin with: A player who allows himself to be put under such influence instantly loses his manhood. He becomes a dirty, groveling loafer, and commits an action which the veriest thief would be ashamed of. He is guilty of an act to which robbing helpless children sent on errands with a few pennies is heroism, “going through” a drunken man’s pockets a worthy notion, or robbing a corpse almost a virtue. The victim is not swindled–it is worth than that; there is scarcely a word strong enough to express the extent and meaning of the filthy crime. Gambling is not a pleasant matter to contemplate at the best, but when a wager is lost in good faith, and through the medium of such a wretch’s moral prostitution, it is the meanest, vilest and most putrefied way of putting a hand in a man’s pock and taking his means. We regret that we have not expressed ourselves quite strong enough in the above. Words are not forcible enough to define the work of such loathsome moral lepers, and we honestly subscribe the opinion that there are but few, if any, in the fraternity. Now, the next thing is simply this: People have been growling from bad to worse in this matter, and have got into the habit of using the names of certain men with utter open recklessness. They could not begin to prove what they say, and it is an outrage, in most cases, which can never be atoned for. An accusation of this kind is no laughing matter. A report spread in this manner not only scandalizes a probably innocent man, but puts him in jeopardy of his life. Had Wansley, Duffy and Devyr been seen immediately after the exposure consequent upon their dishonesty in the famous Mutual-Eckford game, they would have taken their leave of this world in a very summary manner, and we know that a vigorous search was made for them. These threats we have heard within this week, and we hope that in every instance hereafter, where there is the least suspicion of culpability on the part of players, club managers will have the parties examined on oath. After ferreting out the proof, and where guilt is discovered, the criminal be ejected with disgrace from the professional, and left to the tender mercies of those whom he has victimized. This is the only mode of procedure. Clubs pay efficient players for their services, and they should render their best. Suppose an artist is engaged to do a certain piece of work in his best style. He is a man of more than ordinary ability and is paid accordingly; he gets sulky, perhaps, or, for a consideration from some jealous person, slights his work, daubs through it carelessly, and money is wasted, where a man of mediocre talent would have actually beaten him and honestly done his work for much less money. Since we have commenced this topic we might as well do it thoroughly. Before the game of Wednesday last it was currently reported that the Philadelphians would “throw” the game. Every player on the nine was aware of this rumor, and the only origin we can find for the same was the fact that a shrewd sporting man anticipated a very easy triumph for the Boston on several grounds. In the first place the Philadelphians had just returned from Cape May, where indolence and over-eating, without further dissipation, put them out of condition. The Baltimore and Boston Clubs did the same thing last year, and lost seriously by it. It was a good ground to base theory on. The two months’ gymnasium practice before the season helped the Quakers to much of their success; to break this good condition was injudicious. Another thing: the party referred to looked at the fine condition of the Boston; and the loss of needed practice by the Philadelphians on account of the postponement of the Washington game of Monday last. So the market was flooded with his case, tongues commenced to wag, and in a short time a scandal was concocted. It is as clear as day. If, on the other hand, the party had paid players to aid him in winning his money, it is very unlikely that he would tell the public or even a personal friend. Men do not care to boast of dirty work of this kind. The result was against the Philadelphians, and it so happened that the game was lost by the poor play of one man, who has a record for honesty that is not questioned by any one, and the defeat was taken gracefully. ... The following is from Mr. Chadwick’s pen. He is impulsive, and no doubt regrets very many things he does. The mere fact that a player buys pools is to be regretted; but, at the same time, it does not make his dishonest. Still the paragraph is, to a certain extent, important: ‘A record is being privately kept of all the professional ball players who have bought pools on games they have played in this season. It would astonish Philadelphians, Bostonians and Baltimoreans, not posted in the “ways that are dark and tricks which are vain,” in professional circles to see the list already secured. Of course it would be no surprise to our people, as they see it done too often. The clubs which are behindhand in the score would no doubt bring the matter up in conversation but for the fact that no one could enter court with clean hands. ‘At the close of the season, when the comments of the play and the averages of each are made out, not a name of a suspected man will appear on the record. We have also to state that every season we have been written to to know if we could indorse this and that player. Thus far we have eight down on our books who are rated as black sheep, and the blackest of the flock is a fellow we call “Rascal Jack,” because he has “Dunn” so many people. Mr. John Dunn’s great character was “That Rascal Jack.”’ It is hardly necessary to allude to the player referred to in the last few lines. Now, if there are any charges of fraud with good foundation, let them be advanced at once, and let the culprit be publicly and privately disgraced. Until this is done there will be no end of fault-finding and accusation. |
| Source | Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />