Deadspin: Excerpts From The Book The NBA Doesn't Want You To Read

[Whisky Dog]

Which is why I posted an independent review, too, which reaches strikingly similar results to the NBA's study.

Was the company conducting the independent review Investigated completely to ensure no ties to the NBA or other factors that would skew results? I remember that game and it's impossible to get anywhere near even missed calls even if you are very loosely interpreting the league rules. I don't know if it's blatant cheating but something isn't right.

The NBA should all along have been employing the Sam Rothstein philosophy with regards to officials who continuously call skewed games - "either you're in on a scam or you're too stupid to know the difference. Either way we can't trust you"

I don't think there is a blatant conspiracy or outright criminal conduct by anyone with the NBA. Instead I think the league knows and the refs know where the money is and whether consciously or subconsciously they show bias like superstar treatment, etc. It's still manipulation and a hurdle to overcome no matter what, but the question to me is if it's a conscious decision or a subconscious one.

[Whisky Dog]

Then those who buy into this should never complain about refereeing, League decisions or "questionable" outcomes of games.

Accept it as just another part of the game.

Why not? Why should that be just another part of the game? It's a very unprofessional and poor performance by the refs at best and borderline cheating at worst. Would your boss consider you messing things up and working in an unprofessional manner because of your ego and personal bias "just a part of the job?" if so let me know so I can work for that person and be a dick whenever I feel bad.

[greyforest]

I didn't know about Jack Nies and Duncan, I must have missed that.

I just laugh every time I think back to Tim with that dumbfounded look (y'know his normal look) when he got a T for laughing on the bench. That was too funny. :lol

parkers face was funnier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGeNWwBN5bQ

[jag]

Why not? Why should that be just another part of the game? It's a very unprofessional and poor performance by the refs at best and borderline cheating at worst. Would your boss consider you messing things up and working in an unprofessional manner because of your ego and personal bias "just a part of the job?" if so let me know so I can work for that person and be a dick whenever I feel bad.


I don't need a simple analogy about my job and work performance to understand the message you're trying to convey.

My response was directed at those who believe that the refs are being asked by the NBA to manipulate the outcomes of games. If you, or anyone else, is convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the NBA is doing this then there's no reason to question the intentions of referees. Accept it as part of the game.

[Whisky Dog]

I don't need a simple analogy about my job and work performance to understand the message you're trying to convey.

My response was directed at those who believe that the refs are being asked by the NBA to manipulate the outcomes of games. If you, or anyone else, is convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that the NBA is doing this then there's no reason to question the intentions of referees. Accept it as part of the game.

I think you did need the analogy because you still don't understand. What part of what I've posted would make you think I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt the NBA is asking refs to manipulate games? As I posted previously I don't think the NBA is "asking" because that would be criminal act. I believe the NBA is not taking action to ensure there is no "superstar treatment" or other biases that effect games. I don't know the reason why they haven't taken steps. Is it because those activities by refs benefits the league by letting stars be even bigger stars? Maybe. Is it because the league is subtley, without explicitly saying, directing refs to call games this way to the benefit of the league at the expense of fair play and sportsmanship? Maybe. There is a 500 lbs fat lady sized shadow of a doubt because we don't know why they aren't correcting those biases that I think we all can agree do exist.

[lennyalderette]

you know what i think news broke out to the refs about the investigation last night and they finally just called an even game!! lakers are so used to having the refs on their side its ridiculous!!! do you guys remember when they got the replacement refs who was the first one complaining about it publicly? derek fisher why? its all an even slate at that point and they rely on those calls day in and day out!! duncanownskobe phoenix fan, dont give me that crap that we had shit handed to us!!! the guy said he liked the spurs community and believe me i watched every second of that game and u could have swaped stoudamire for jordan in that series i mean it was ridiculous, i honestly think it was fair game with all the fouls the spurs were called for. if we got things handed to us just look at some videos from any of our playoff appearances!!! i encourage you to prove me wrong on this, san antonio has been fucked so many times its ridiculous

[lennyalderette]

i do believe however that this year is going to be totally fair because of the investigations going on, and im excited as hell because of it. now if your not excited that this stuff has come out, (laker,boston,cleveland) you know your team has been getting special treatment!! by all means investigate the spurs please i've watched the spurs my whole life we have always had to play so good the refs couldnt even beat us!! believe me they were never on our side. sure.. they want lil ol san antonio to win? give me a break remember were the most boring team in the nba!!

[jag]

I believe the NBA is not taking action to ensure there is no "superstar treatment" or other biases that effect games. I don't know the reason why they haven't taken steps.


...we don't know why they aren't correcting those biases that I think we all can agree do exist.


Too many people expect these guys to show up at their job and be error-free. Human error will always be a part of being a NBA ref.

What action do you propose should be taken to ensure that there is no superstar treatment? Certain players earn certain respect for what they have done over the course of their careers. That's how the NBA has always been. It's not in a memo that the League office passes around every season, it's just the way things are. Larry Bird was given calls that JJ Redick doesn't get...and i think that's how it SHOULD be. Tim gets aways with things that Mark Madsen could never get away with, and i think he has earned that.

Referees are human beings with varying emotions, judgement and personal biases. I'm sure they do their best to suppress certain emotions and feelings for the sake of their job, because like most everyone, they want to be perceived as competent in their profession. I'm not exactly sure what "steps" could be taken to "correct" these biases and emotions, because they will always exist.

Punishing referees for ridiculous behavior is something the NBA already does (see Joey Crawford). And i just don't think it's practical to start punishing refs per bad call. Referees don't have the benefit of slow motion...they are making split-second decisions in front of thousands of screaming fans while the best athletes in the world are moving at top speed right in front of them.

Bad calls happen in every game, and to every team. Superstars get calls that scrubs do not get. That's just how the game is, and that's how it's always been.

The best teams win.

[Galileo]

Did you read the excerpts? There's a passage about how the refs nursed the Spurs past the Suns in 2007 just like there's a passage about how the refs nursed the Lakers past the Kings in 2002.

You don't get to cherry pick the parts you like and don't like from the excerpts. There's no possible, unbiased way to determine which part of Donaghy's book is true/untrue. If you think the NBA is so fixed, then don't watch.

The Spurs-Suns series was not a conspiracy allegation, it was a lone nut with a grudge.

[poeticism707]

Well, this is ironic, isn't it?

I've been saying for seemingly years without number that the NBA was rigged beyond all rigging. That as much I love the Spurs, Duncan's titles were an allowance by the NBA, just something to deflect attention. I remember when I posted just that on Spurs Talk, how many I was referred to as a "conspiracy theorist" and whatever else.

I tell you, where's there's smoke, there's fire. And ALL evil that is done in darkness shall be brought out into the light.

[clubalien]

makes you wonder how many nba titles david would have had if the nba wasn't rigged against us.

The spurs only started to win championships when the hispanic market became something companies targeted.

[michaelwcho]

Sure, because playing on NBA fans' paranoia is exactly what he's doing. It might be plausible so long as you don't consider the source. Know this, because it's worth repeating: When a book publisher won't publish a "tell-all" book because they're worried about liability, any excerpts from it should immediately set off bullshit detectors across the globe.

In the real world, large-scale manipulations in various fields do occur. Why would we assume that the most successful and powerful people would not exercise control if they have the means to do so? Do we really think that highly-connected politicians don't economically benefit from their connections, that companies with monopolistic power don't use it?

If the NBA could significantly increase its profits by giving amorphous, deniable, "understood" direction to their refs, it would be tempting. If it could be done with little risk, we would then be relying on the honor system to prevent it. It seems similar to me to how insurance companies work their claims in systematic attempts to deny coverage (a process which is by nature more documented; thus they sometimes get caught).

D's allegations may be tainted by his background, but allowing for a bit of hyperbole, they are no less plausible. Think about it: what credible person could blow a whistle on such a "conspiracy"? Witnessing it would mean being part of it, being part of it would mean being tainted.

(BTW, OV, I'm not targeting you with this post, but it's also in response to the thread so far)

[Galileo]

DICK BAVETTA STATS IN BUCKS GAMES SINCE 1991-92

by SCassell19 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:52 pm

I have records going back to the 1991-92 season of every Bucks game (except 2 I cant find boxscores from) played with the final score, free throws, fouls called ect. I have records of who reffed each game as well. Since all this broke on Bavetta, and since Ive always thought he was the main game fixer in the NBA, I took a look at his records and stats when he reffed Bucks games. Some of it is interesting.

Record by year (Playoffs included):

91-92: 1-5
92-93: 3-2
93-94: 1-5
94-95: 3-3
95-96: 1-2
96-97: 0-2
97-98: 2-1
98-99: 1-2
99-00: 3-6
00-01: 0-7
01-02: 1-5
02-03: 3-2
03-04: 1-5
04-05: 1-5
05-06: 0-1
06-07: 2-2
07-08: 1-1

Overall: 24-56
Playoffs: 1-5

Notice how Bavetta's "worst" year was also the Bucks best percentage wise. The Bucks had a 16 game losing streak in games reffed by Bavetta. This happened from 2000-2002 (playoffs included). Keep in mind what the Bucks record was during that time (especially in 2000-01). Its not like that was a 16 game losing streak when the Bucks were horrible.

The Bucks are 31-48-1 against the spread in games reffed by Bavetta.

The Bucks are 13-20 Straight Up when they are favored in a Bavetta reffed game.

12-29 Overall on the road
12-27 Overall at home.

I wanted to know what the Bucks record was when they were the better team (record wise). The records I used for this research were the records for both teams at the end of the regular season. So if the Bucks finish 42-40 and played an opponent that was 39-43 at the end of the year...the Bucks were the "better team" even though its possible the other team had the better record at the time the game was played.

The Bucks are 11-19 when they are the "better team"

The Bucks are 4-8 when they are the "better team" and at home.

The Bucks are 9-27 when they are .500 or better at the end of that season.

The Bucks are 14-18 when their opponent is below .500 at the end of the season.

The Bucks are 10-38 when the opponent is .500 or better at the end of the year.

The Bucks are 11-26 in games decided by 6 or less

The Bucks are 6-13 in games decided by 7-10

The Bucks are 4-4 in games decided by 20+

In the 80 games the Bucks were outscored by 307 total points (3.84 per game). The Opponents shot 319 (3.99 per game) more free throws than the Bucks in those same 80 games.

48 times the opponent shot more free throws than the Bucks
23 times the Bucks shot more free throws than the opponent.
9 times it was equal.

24 times the opponent shot 10+ more free throws than the Bucks
8 times the Bucks shot 10+ more free throws than the opp.

21 times the opponent shot 60%+ of the total free throws shot in the game.
6 times the Bucks shot 60%+ of the total free throws in the game.

I also looked at games where the free throw differantial was greater than or equal to the point differential in the game. So if the Bucks shot 15 fewer free throws in a game and lost by 10 then it would qualify. I call these "fishy" games. Another rule is that the free throw differential must be 10 or more. So if the Bucks lose by 1 and the opponent shoots 1 more free throw...this doesnt count as a fishy game. They would have had to at least been outshot by 10 at the line for that to count.

There were a total of 20 "fishy" games. 16 were in favor of the opponent. 4 in favor of the Bucks.

The 3 refs in the infamous Sac-LAL game were Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob Delaney. Two of these guys were called "company men" by Donaghy...always doing things in the NBA's interest. It was obvious that it was in the NBAs interest to have the Lakers advance and send the Kings home.

Was it in the NBA's interest to keep the Bucks out of the 2001 Finals and have the 76ers in it? The key game in that series was game 4. The Bucks were up 2-1 at home and a 3-1 lead would have been very commanding. Dick Bavetta and Ted Bernhardt also reffed that game. Philadelphia shot twice as many free throws as the Bucks in that game. Im just saying...

So to recap...

16 game losing streak when Bavetta refs (just happens to be during the best few years in this 17 year study.

Bucks win 30% of the games Bavetta refs.

Bucks shoot more free throws only 28.8% of the time

Bucks only win 37% of the time when they are the "better" team.

Bucks only win 30.7% of the time AT HOME.

Bucks are 9-27 .250 when they are .500 or better at the end of that season.

In games where one team shoots 10+ more free throws, it is the Bucks opponent that shoots those extra ones 75% of the time.

When there is a "fishy" game (as described above) it is the opponent who is the benefit 80% of the time.

When one team shoots 60% or more of the total free throws it it the opponent that benefits 78% of the time.

Im not saying the word "fix", but perhaps theres too many people that have blinders on that need to take them off.

Any feedback? Any other refs I should research?

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=814760

[Galileo]

flashback - for those who have not seen:

Nba Fixed
http://www.video4viet.com/watchvideo.html?id=H_i3Vnd0n44&title=Nba+Fixed

[Galileo]

VIDEO

Kings vs. Lakers, 2002 WCF Game 6, Part 3 of 3
http://www.gazotube.com/b0KJvlSUB-w.html

[barbacoataco]

I don't have blinders on, but at the same time------------ so many games come down to one team MAKING A SHOT, or not making a shot. And I don't see how the refs control that. In a 7 game series, the better team will win, even if one game is influenced one way or the other.
\ i find Donaghy's accusations to be pretty vague and circumstantial for a "tell all book."

I do think Stern should be ousted and the NBA should take serious steps to assure fans that the refs are above influence.

[FromWayDowntown]

DICK BAVETTA STATS IN BUCKS GAMES SINCE 1991-92

Ask Mavericks fans about the Mavs' record in playoff games officiated by Dan Crawford.

Go look at the Spurs' record in playoff games officiated by Ed Rush.

Curiously, neither of those guys has been implicated in any conspiratorial conduct.

[Horse]

Quite frankly, if you don't realize that the NBA fixes games then you aren't paying attention. I will never forget sitting in the flying saucer in 2003 watching game 4 of the Laker/Wolves series.

Thats the thing. They don't have to make 'bad' calls. The rules are setup to be so nebulous and arbitrary you really cannot argue them. They can create turnovers by calling offensive fouls. They can bailout turnovers by calling fouls. They can take players off the court by calling fouls. You can extend the game by calling fouls.

The most important thing they can do is kill momentum though.

The Lakers were down by 20 or so halfway through the third and it starts. The refs never let the Wolves get on a roll and the Lakers would get bailed out and they would try and keep their momentum alive. Unfortunately for the refs, the lakers were still down by 8 halfway through the fourth. They had to become blatant.

I was literally predicting what the refs were going to call in the last half of the 4th quarter of that game on each and every possession. Devean George misses a jumper? Offensive foul on the other end. Kevin Garnett makes a layup? An and-1 for Kobe at the other end.

At first it kind of freaked me out because I was calling it on a lark but then I realized what was happening. Then it pissed me off.

The people that say that the NBA isn't fixed are either:

A) Clueless about basketball
B) Not paying attention or
C) Refusing to see the truth because they don't want to think of the sport as being tainted.


If we got the benefit of some of it then thats fine with me. I really don't believe it because Stern is all about profits and if I am not mistaken our finals appearance after beating the Suns was one of the worst rated ever if not the worst but whatever.

We are the team after all that got our superstar ejected from a game for smiling on the bench. I was actually hoping that the scabs were going to be staying on and the real refs would stay away. They are absolutely the most corrupt officials in all of professional sports.
To me the worst ever was the laker comeback against portland during their first championship of the 3-peat. No way in hell they comeback without help. It could be fixed or maybe they just suck. I also never understood why old men were the ones who had to chase the finest athletes in the world and make good calls.

[wildbill2u]

I don't have blinders on, but at the same time------------ so many games come down to one team MAKING A SHOT, or not making a shot. And I don't see how the refs control that. In a 7 game series, the better team will win, even if one game is influenced one way or the other.
\ i find Donaghy's accusations to be pretty vague and circumstantial for a "tell all book."

I do think Stern should be ousted and the NBA should take serious steps to assure fans that the refs are above influence.

Not many sports have a foul system where the referee can give a team a lot of opportunities to score points or conversely take away scored points by the other team. If the difference comes down to a shot or two it can be very crucial to see that the favored team gets those shots.

Also, you can take away one team's star(s) with fouls and in a game like pro basketball that is almost always decisive.

[Allanon]

So let me get this straight guys.

1. How many of the last 4 Spurs Championships were given through the cheat?

2. How many of the last 4 Lakers Championships were given through the cheat?

[temujin]

so let me get this straight guys.

1. How many of the last 4 spurs championships were given through the cheat?


1.

2. How many of the last 4 lakers championships were given through the cheat?

2.

[Whisky Dog]

Too many people expect these guys to show up at their job and be error-free. Human error will always be a part of being a NBA ref.

What action do you propose should be taken to ensure that there is no superstar treatment? Certain players earn certain respect for what they have done over the course of their careers. That's how the NBA has always been. It's not in a memo that the League office passes around every season, it's just the way things are. Larry Bird was given calls that JJ Redick doesn't get...and i think that's how it SHOULD be. Tim gets aways with things that Mark Madsen could never get away with, and i think he has earned that.

Referees are human beings with varying emotions, judgement and personal biases. I'm sure they do their best to suppress certain emotions and feelings for the sake of their job, because like most everyone, they want to be perceived as competent in their profession. I'm not exactly sure what "steps" could be taken to "correct" these biases and emotions, because they will always exist.



Hu
Punishing referees for ridiculous behavior is something the NBA already does (see Joey Crawford). And i just don't think it's practical to start punishing refs per bad call. Referees don't have the benefit of slow motion...they are making split-second decisions in front of thousands of screaming fans while the best athletes in the world are moving at top speed right in front of them.

Bad calls happen in every game, and to every team. Superstars get calls that scrubs do not get. That's just how the game is, and that's how it's always been.

The best teams win.

human error is one thing, but a 50+ yr history of favoring superstars just to keep them on the court is a history of unethical behavior. Basketball has rules, and a foul on the worst player in the NBA should be the same as a foul on Kobe. It's why the NBA is seen as kind of a joke among the major US sports behind both Nfl and MLb

[Obstructed_View]

Why is his character in question? Because Stern says so?

I'll answer this question for other people that might read this thread, as I'm sure you won't pay attention to my answer, nor do I really think that you actually believe the stupid shit you say.

Donaghy didn't say anything to anyone until he got caught. He only said what he said as part of a plea agreement, which was to save his own ass. He's only saying what he's saying now because he wants to make money off a book, capitalizing on the only fifteen minutes he's ever likely to have.

Why is his character in question? Because the number on his federal prison uniform says so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll answer this question for other people that might read this thread, as I'm sure you won't pay attention to my answer, nor do I really think that you actually believe the stupid shit you say.

Donaghy didn't say anything to anyone until he got caught. He only said what he said as part of a plea agreement, which was to save his own ass. He's only saying what he's saying now because he wants to make money off a book, capitalizing on the only fifteen minutes he's ever likely to have.

Why is his character in question? Because the number on his federal prison uniform says so.

Donaghy was in on it. Of course he isn't going to say anything until after hes busted.

I do not understand why it so hard to believe when its pretty much a given that the rules are changed to suit certain players. If they do that then why wouldn't they extend that out a bit if that also suits their marketing needs?

[antimvp]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/txlonghorns4ever/ministerstern.jpg

[antimvp]

NBA threatens legal action?................they sound like crooks already.

If they had nothing to hide who cares about a stupid book?

notice how ESPN does not broadcast this too loudly?......you can find it on the back pages at the ESPN website.

[diego]

So let me get this straight guys.

1. How many of the last 4 Spurs Championships were given through the cheat?

2. How many of the last 4 Lakers Championships were given through the cheat?

no team is given championships. I dont believe that at all.

Nor do I believe that refs must be perfect , fined for missed calls, etc.

I do however think that egregious mistakes are made that can have a huge impact on a game, and I think that Stu Jackson has shown time and again that he has no business setting guidelines for referees. At least the refs have to make their calls in the moment so you can understand why they make mistakes. Stu has the benefit of replay and various camera angles and he still makes baffling, inconsistent decisions that contradict the rulebook.

[101A]

No way we would have watched that snoozer called the Pistons vs Spurs Finals.


That was the best finals since, well, since I can't even remember exactly when there was more competitive, not decided 'til late in the 7th game finals - what is exciting in your eyes?

[duncan228]

Don't believe Donaghy's hype (http://www.oregonlive.com/nba/index.ssf/2009/11/dont_believe_donaghys_hype_nba.html)
By Geoffrey C. Arnold, The Oregonian

Why should anyone believe Tim Donaghy ?

The disgraced and convicted ex-NBA referee, scheduled to be released from a federal prison on Wednesday, has reportedly written a book that regurgitates claims that NBA referees cannot be trusted to call a game fairly.

This time, reports have indicated that Donaghy is calling out referees by naming names. Another of the book's major claims is that the league's superstars receive preferential treatment. That's news? The National Football League does the same thing: It's called the "Tom Brady Rule" that protects quarterbacks.

If I were in his situation, I might write a "tell-all" book. Donaghy is a convicted crook and gambler who spent time in prison. He is apparently broke and with no hope of returning to his former profession to earn a legitimate living. Yeah, I would write a book, make a few sensational allegations, try to hit the television talk-show circuit and earn some much-needed cash.

There are certainly instances of player-referee animosity within the league over the years. Joe Crawford was suspended for ejecting Tim Duncan in 2007. Charles Barkley and Mike Mathis had a long-running feud. Clyde Drexler will tell you that Jake O'Donnell hated him (O'Donnell has said he had nothing against Drexler).

But fixing games? Come on. Illegally extending a playoff series to seven games? Please. Still, the league, sensitive to charges of impropriety, plans to investigate Donaghy's latest claims.

There would need to be a lot of people involved to fix the outcome of a game. Wouldn't somebody, someone who didn't want to participate, squeal and alert the league or authorities? Wouldn't a stand-up fellow referee, recognizing the stakes - reputation, career, credibility of the game - involved, say something? And by the way, if the Donaghy case didn't make it clear enough, fixing games is a crime. People, like Donaghy, who are caught and convicted can go to prison.

Maybe Donaghy is trying to clear a very disgraced name and dirty reputation with his book. Whatever his reasoning for writing a book, it's not going to help. He should simply be quiet, work in the community, allow time and good works to rehabilitate him and his reputation.

[duncan228]

Donaghy To Be Released Wednesday (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=tsn-donaghytobereleasedw&prov=tsn&type=lgns)
SportingNews

Tim Donaghy may not get a chance to be a published author (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/41020/donaghy_revelations_valuable_to_casual_nba_fan;_to _true_fan,_not_so_much), but he will soon be a free man. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20091102_Disgraced_ex-NBA_referee_Donaghy_to_be_released.html), the arch-fiend who nearly brought down the NBA will be out of prison this week, after having returned due to a probation violation:

Tim Donaghy will be released from federal prison Wednesday, according to consultants the ex-NBA referee has hired to ease his post-prison transition.

Donaghy, a Havertown native who lost his job and was sentenced to 15 months for providing inside information to gamblers, hopes to find a job in sales or marketing, according to a press release issued last night by Executive Prison Consultants.

Of course, the story is far from over. The NBA may have managed to keep Donaghy's book from hitting stores, but excerpts still found its way onto the web (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/40932/according_to_donaghy,_iverson_was_polarizing_even_ for_the_refs). Now, he's once again a hot topic, with Phil Jackson even weighing in on some of Donaghy's accusations—he buys them, actually (http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/The_Baseline/entry/view/41225/some_of_donaghys_claims_ring_true_to_phil). The NBA apparently didn't read the book either, since they are now launching further investigations based on the leaked excerpts. There's also the chance that there could be more criminal charges, maybe against Donaghy himself. He'd better enjoy the sweet taste of freedom while he can.

[Obstructed_View]

Donaghy was in on it. Of course he isn't going to say anything until after hes busted.

As of this moment, Donaghy is all of it. No one else is "in on it." The only allegation that anyone else is involved comes from him. He was the only one we know of who was a compulsive gambler, he's the only one we know of who was way in debt, he's the only one we know of who had contact with the mob, and he's the only one we know of who bet on those games.


I do not understand why it so hard to believe when its pretty much a given that the rules are changed to suit certain players. If they do that then why wouldn't they extend that out a bit if that also suits their marketing needs?

No, the NBA seems to have no qualms about changing a rule to suit their needs, so there's simply no need or sense in trying to do it under the table, because they will change a rule to try to manipulate the game during the offseason with very little regard for the consequences. When you have access to a legal weapon like that, there's simply no reason to bother trying to sneak anything else in.

Besides, if they were the type of league that were willing to do that, then they could have gone easy on Amare and Diaw. Public opinion would have forgiven them for violating the rules to benefit Phoenix.

[Galileo]

As of this moment, Donaghy is all of it. No one else is "in on it." The only allegation that anyone else is involved comes from him. He was the only one we know of who was a compulsive gambler, he's the only one we know of who was way in debt, he's the only one we know of who had contact with the mob, and he's the only one we know of who bet on those games.



No, the NBA seems to have no qualms about changing a rule to suit their needs, so there's simply no need or sense in trying to do it under the table, because they will change a rule to try to manipulate the game during the offseason with very little regard for the consequences. When you have access to a legal weapon like that, there's simply no reason to bother trying to sneak anything else in.

Besides, if they were the type of league that were willing to do that, then they could have gone easy on Amare and Diaw. Public opinion would have forgiven them for violating the rules to benefit Phoenix.

You've been duped. I suggest you watch the game film.

[La Peace]

Well before Dwayne Wade held the title for Ft's per game in the finals the previous owner of the record was Michael Jordan.

[Obstructed_View]

You've been duped. I suggest you watch the game film.

You of all people prove that an idiot can infer anything he likes from any video he chooses.

[Galileo]

You of all people prove that an idiot can infer anything he likes from any video he chooses.

I am Galileo.

[Baseline]

You can tell, that Donaghy is telling the truth, and Stern is lying:

Notice how all Dtern does is attack Donaghy's character and issue denials.

Well, we already know about Donaghy.

and denial is a sign of guilt.

Stern has offered no real facts, like specific statements from other referees or players.

The best chance to break this thing open is a RETIRED ref to come forward. Someone like Ted Bernhardt, who is honest, and has been dragged down into the stink of Bob Delaney.

Also, note that Donaghy has given only facts, he is not attacking Stern's character. The facts about Stern's character speak for themselves.

Here's all we need to know about Stern's character...

When asked who would be in his ideal Finals, he said, "Lakers vs. Lakers."

Whether it's on court favoritism from refs, favoritism by orchestrating front office moves (the Gasol trade), or purposely ramming K. Bryant (an alleged rapist) down our throats as a superstar and national hero, it's crystal clear which team Mr. Stern wants in the spotlight, if not on the podium hoisting the O'Brien Trophy.

To me, far more shocking than any of Donahey's revelations, is the fact that the Spurs have won four titles over the last ten years. That feat is nothing short of miraculous.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As of this moment, Donaghy is all of it. No one else is "in on it." The only allegation that anyone else is involved comes from him. He was the only one we know of who was a compulsive gambler, he's the only one we know of who was way in debt, he's the only one we know of who had contact with the mob, and he's the only one we know of who bet on those games.



No, the NBA seems to have no qualms about changing a rule to suit their needs, so there's simply no need or sense in trying to do it under the table, because they will change a rule to try to manipulate the game during the offseason with very little regard for the consequences. When you have access to a legal weapon like that, there's simply no reason to bother trying to sneak anything else in.

Besides, if they were the type of league that were willing to do that, then they could have gone easy on Amare and Diaw. Public opinion would have forgiven them for violating the rules to benefit Phoenix.

You miss the point, cannot recall your initial point and meander over a topic like a drunken hooker.

1) The 'in on it' argument was in reference to your argument that it could not be true because he didn't say anything until after he was busted. Well if what he was saying is true then why in hell would he say something and incriminate himself and the golden goose. Prima facia it makes no sense.

You can continue on your tangent if you like

2) Actually, they don't change the rules halfway through the season. Diaw and Stoudamire got the hammer because of a rules change during the offesason in the wake of the Artest fiasco.

Most of the rules in the post and on the perimeter are so nebulous that you can hardly call them rules. They are more like guidelines. You look at the difference in how the game is called for Oberto as opposed to Duncan on defense or Parker vs Daniels on offense.

Why change the rules when you canb acall them any way you want to as it is.

A three second call is one thing but lets take Parkers drives into shot blockers. They stand there he jumps into them and is able to get a clean shot because they have 200 lbs of running frenchman colliding with them. Oftentimes he'll initiate that outside the circle.

In my world thats aas much a charge as Shaq knocking people down and dunking it is. You never see either called.

They do it because its good for marketing. Do you deny this?

[senorglory]

That was the best finals since, well, since I can't even remember exactly when there was more competitive, not decided 'til late in the 7th game finals - what is exciting in your eyes?

Rockets - Knicks. That was an awesome finals that went down to the wire.

[La Peace]

I don't think people get it. Some people are arguing "your series was more rigged than mine"? Are you guys kidding? A rigged series is a rigged series this is no longer a competition. Get out of that mind set.

And these allegations put an ASTERISK on EVERY team who has won with these refs running around. Why? Because if they have the power to rig, extend, end and completely control a series. Then they would have to at the very least allow a team to win, and if they allow a team to win, that is favorable treatment, because in certain cases they didn't allow the better team to win. EVERYTHING can be quetsioned now. Every series, every game. If your team won, does that mean they actually won? Did they let you win? Did they make you win? Did they make unfavorable calls to the other team? Did they have something against the other team? Why did the other team not have any refs favoring them? Its all questioned with it has their stamp on it. Their input. Everything.

[Obstructed_View]

You miss the point, cannot recall your initial point and meander over a topic like a drunken hooker.
Um, okay. Game on.


1) The 'in on it' argument was in reference to your argument that it could not be true because he didn't say anything until after he was busted. Well if what he was saying is true then why in hell would he say something and incriminate himself and the golden goose. Prima facia it makes no sense.

You miss the point, cannot recall your initial point and meander over a topic like a drunken hooker. The "in on it" argument was your attempt to continue to imply that more than one person was involved after I answered someone else's question about why the sole witness' character was in question. At no time did I say it "could not be true".

One of us (me) is looking at the evidence, the other (you) is relying on assumptions and speculation, and seems to be resorting to misrepresentation of the other's statements.

Let me repeat: There remains ZERO evidence to corroborate his implications aside from paranoia from conspiracy hungry NBA fans trying to justify their team's losing in one or more playoff series. The only time that any attempt was made to incriminate anyone else was by Donaghy himself after being busted for gambling on games, including games he worked; an offense for which he was convicted and sent to jail. To this day he remains the only person implicated, let alone indicted. If there were a corroborating witness, they would have been offered immunity in order to take down the conspiracy. As it stands, Donaghy's accusations completely dovetail with his pattern of actions and statements in that they are completely self-serving and therefore, in my estimation, must be taken with a grain of salt.



2) Actually, they don't change the rules halfway through the season. Diaw and Stoudamire got the hammer because of a rules change during the offesason in the wake of the Artest fiasco.
Reading is fundamental, because I never said they did. "Offseason" does not equal "halfway through the season". And the leaving the bench rule has nothing to do with Ron Artest. It was in place WAY before that, and was amended after Patrick Ewing was suspended for stepping onto the floor during a fight. Hand check rules, moving the three point line, the no-charge area, and changing the wording in the rulebook regarding travelling are all offseason changes made by the competition committee.


Most of the rules in the post and on the perimeter are so nebulous that you can hardly call them rules. They are more like guidelines. You look at the difference in how the game is called for Oberto as opposed to Duncan on defense or Parker vs Daniels on offense.

Why change the rules when you canb acall them any way you want to as it is.

A three second call is one thing but lets take Parkers drives into shot blockers. They stand there he jumps into them and is able to get a clean shot because they have 200 lbs of running frenchman colliding with them. Oftentimes he'll initiate that outside the circle.

In my world thats aas much a charge as Shaq knocking people down and dunking it is. You never see either called.

They do it because its good for marketing. Do you deny this?

The above is mostly incoherent rambling about individual judgment calls you disagree with that you're blaming on the big mean NBA marketing machine. You and Galileo should be talking about shit like that. Here's the relevant statement from you that I'll address:


Why change the rules when you canb acall (sic) them any way you want to as it is.

I've already given a number of examples of the NBA changing the rules, so my question remains: Why issue a directive to the referees to violate the rules when you can manipulate them legally in the offseason any way you choose?