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

[ClingingMars]

Not endorsing this as truth or fiction...but what is entailed in this book is DEFINITELY disturbing.

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read


Two weeks before the 2003–04 season ended, Bavetta and I were assigned to officiate a game in Oakland. That afternoon before the tip-off, we were discussing an upcoming game on our schedule. It was the last regular-season game we were scheduled to work, pitting Denver against San Antonio. Denver had lost a game a few weeks prior because of a mistake made by the referees, a loss that could be the difference between them making or missing the playoffs. Bavetta told me Denver needed the win and that it would look bad for the staff and the league if the Nuggets missed the playoffs by one game. There were still a few games left on the schedule before the end of the season, and the standings could potentially change. But on that day in Oakland, Bavetta looked at me and casually stated, "Denver will win if they need the game. That's why I'm on it."

I was thinking, How is Denver going to win on the road in San Antonio? At the time, the Spurs were arguably the best team in the league. Bavetta answered my question before it was asked.

"Duncan will be on the bench with three fouls within the first five minutes of the game," he calmly stated.

Bavetta went on to inform me that it wasn't the first time the NBA assigned him to a game for a specific purpose. He cited examples, including the 1993 playoff series when he put New Jersey guard Drazen Petrovic on the bench with quick fouls to help Cleveland beat the Nets. He also spoke openly about the 2002 Los Angeles–Sacramento series and called himself the NBA's "go-to guy."

As it turned out, Denver didn't need the win after all; they locked up a spot in the playoffs before they got to San Antonio. In a twist of fate, it was the Spurs that ended up needing the win to have a shot at the division title, and Bavetta generously accommodated. In our pregame meeting, he talked about how important the game was to San Antonio and how meaningless it was to Denver, and that San Antonio was going to get the benefit of the calls that night. Armed with this inside information, I called Jack Concannon before the game and told him to bet the Spurs.

To no surprise, we won big. San Antonio blew Denver out of the building that evening, winning by 26 points. When Jack called me the following morning, he expressed amazement at the way an NBA game could be manipulated. Sobering, yes; amazing, no. That's how the game is played in the National Basketball Association.


My favorite Tommy Nunez story is from the 2007 playoffs when the San Antonio Spurs were able to get past the Phoenix Suns in the second round. Of course, what many fans didn't know was that Phoenix had someone working against them behind the scenes. Nunez was the group supervisor for that playoff series, and he definitely had a rooting interest.

Nunez loved the Hispanic community in San Antonio and had a lot of friends there. He had been a referee for 30 years and loved being on the road; in fact, he said that the whole reason he had become a group supervisor was to keep getting out of the house. So Nunez wanted to come back to San Antonio for the conference finals. Plus, he, like many other referees, disliked Suns owner Robert Sarver for the way he treated officials. Both of these things came into play when he prepared the referees for the games in the staff meetings. I remember laughing with him and saying, "You would love to keep coming back here." He was pointing out everything that Phoenix was able to get away with and never once told us to look for anything in regard to San Antonio. Nunez should have a championship ring on his finger.

Be prepared for revamped Suns trolls

[timvp]

This will not end well.

[ClingingMars]

This will not end well.

I had a sick feeling in my stomach as I read the part about 2007...just can't shake it.

I want to believe he's a crook and a liar, and that this is all absolute bullshit. But I can't.

[Spursmania]

Is anybody really surprised? This happens everyday, it's too hard to take subjectivity out of the mix. That's why every Spur fan hates Joey Crawford.

[BillMc]

Joey's non call of the foul on Brent Barry was the most obvious case of a biased ref getting his wish I have ever seen.

(Of course, I am a biased fan...)

[HarlemHeat37]

I still don't understand the outrage in the Suns-Spurs series..the officiating wasn't nearly as bad as many other series' this decade, and people really twisted it..even in the infamous youtube video about the Spurs getting calls in that series, the calls aren't even that bad..

I didn't hear any non-Spurs fans crying about the officiating in the Dallas series..

LOL @ the Spurs getting calls due to San Antonio's Mexican community..

[iggypop123]

wtf they had the whole book and publish a couple of paragraphs. wtf was the rest about. him as a kid or something?

[afireinside20]

Anything in that book about the Lakers lol Probably a whole shitload of chapters on fixed games for them.

[HarlemHeat37]

Sadly this book is going to make me side with a lot of Laker fans on the internet, since we're gonna have to be defending our team just like they'll have to defend theirs..

[DAF86]

This shit is killing all the excitment I had from the Spurs game, it makes me want to stop seeing the NBA.

[DAF86]

Sadly this book is going to make me side with a lot of Laker fans on the internet, since we're gonna have to be defending our team just like they'll have to defend theirs..

Why do you have to defend the indefendible?

[z0sa]

Donaghy book canceled over liability (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4603209)

[DespЏrado]

The Suns didn't need much if any help losing to the Spurs. But it does call into question just about everything the NBA spews fair and impartial treatment.

The Spurs/Suns series was the only shot the Suns had at actually beating us, I will give them that. It is equally fair to acknowledge that the Spurs had just as good of a chance to beat the Suns.

And it's not like the Spurs haven't had their turn at being the whipping boy of the officials a certain Dallas series comes to mind as well as a couple of Laker's series.

But this shit has to stop. I say we mike the refs and feed it live over the internet, during the entire game including the breaks and halftime reviews.

[#2!]

This shit is killing all the excitment I had from the Spurs game, it makes me want to stop seeing the NBA.

seriously, what a buzzkill:depressed

[eyeh8u]

this guy is the jose conseco of nba referees

i heard bevetta told his friends to bet charles barkley in the race at the all star game, bevetta lost the race on purpose

[braeden0613]

Donaghy book canceled over liability (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4603209)
It will get out eventually...for some reason I picture Stern hanging out in barnes and noble hiding the book in the kids section.

Still though, I'm sure some of this is true...but alot exaggerated or flat out false.

[DespЏrado]

The Shit about Bavetta is dead on though. There is no doubt he is used to extend a series and that he lets the losing team pull to within six points. (I know it's six because that's when he swallows his whistle.)

The thing Bavetta has started to try to compensate for this by calling fouls on the bad team that don't change the game. He makes sure they get to the penalty just as fast as the other team without putting the better team on the line. And the game just slows to a crawl.

[Xylus]

Suns lost fair and square.

The End. Put it to rest, plz.

[lennyalderette]

thats why i was so happy when we were going to get new refs!! because it gave us a window period to be a fair game. i mean come on the suns? lets talk l.a games!!! lets talk about all the bad officiating against the spurs our whole era!! i mean seriously i dont believe the spurs were part of a conspiracy at all, it would make the nba no money whatsoever. if you watched that game against clippers yesterday, thats the shit im talking about. when l.a is getting close to losing they call a few retarded fouls and it throws everyones energy off!!!

[NZ Spurs]

Let me get this straight? They helped the Spurs win because some guy wanted to stay away from his wife?

Weak.

[lennyalderette]

some are so obvious its ridiculous!!! i thought to myself no way theyre starting this crap their first game back!!!

[HarlemHeat37]

I'll admit that his stories are interesting, but to be fair, those excerpts are mostly about incidents we already know about..the Suns-Spurs was already "controversial", Lakers-Kings was obvious, Lakers-Blazers was obvious, Kobe getting superstar calls is obvious..

his story about Iverson vs. Javie/Crawford isn't supported by the numbers..his Spurs-Nuggets story could have just easily been the much more superior team dominating, as expected..

While on one side we have to consider that this is all possible..on the other side you have to consider that this is a guy that has no integrity, he cheated the game, and he's naming a lot of obvious games, and doesn't have hard evidence..

[Whisky Dog]

Shit, I've known this was at least manipulated for years. I just can't understand why the NBA would want small market SA to win titles??

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

[EricB]

Not good, but, consider the source. Donadick was a pile of lying crap so who knows what the truth is.

[HarlemHeat37]

I also remember that Wolves game, it was the worst officiated game I've ever seen, only next to Lakers-Kings game 6..I remember KG fouling out on an extremely questionable call in OT, Kobe getting an and-1 on Wally when he didn't even touch him..

I don't believe the NBA is fixed though, it's just too difficult..I do believe certain teams and players get the benefit of having more calls, but everybody already knows that..

[newacc]

The most obvious cheating was the Spurs vs. Mavs 2006 series. You want proof of fixing go watch that series. The Spurs were murdered with so many bad calls on the road, they couldn't come back in those games. I wouldn't be surprised if the Spurs then got some favorable return on games 5 and 6.

Also, I didn't watch all of it, but from what I did see, Mavs got robbed vs. D. Wade.

Most times I think they leave the games alone. Others they probably disguise it well, but if you watch some of the important playoff games there are just too many "unbelievable" calls to think otherwise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also remember that Wolves game, it was the worst officiated game I've ever seen, only next to Lakers-Kings game 6..I remember KG fouling out on an extremely questionable call in OT, Kobe getting an and-1 on Wally when he didn't even touch him..

I don't believe the NBA is fixed though, it's just too difficult..I do believe certain teams and players get the benefit of having more calls, but everybody already knows that..

Come on. Too difficult?

It was a game that the Lakers absofuckinglutely had to win. If they didnt they are down 3-1 and heading back to Minny.

Whats so difficult about all the fucked up calls starting in the 3rd quarter with the Lakers down by 3 dozen?

Whats so difficult in the refs intervening on almost every call in the last four minutes?

Quite frankly you make me a ref and I can make whoever I want to win whenever I want them to win. The hard part isn't doing it. The hard part is doing it in such a way that people don't notice it.

[DespЏrado]

If I were a ref the games would be ridiculously easy to manipulate. Its not very hard to shift momentum within a couple of plays.

One thought I have about finding proof for this. When the refs are calling a game fairly the calls should be fairly random. The same number of types of calls should be made throughout a game. When a ref tries to control a game they would no doubt start skewing that randomness to some kind of discernible pattern.

Like a ref who is actually calling a game evenly would see an offensive foul if it were to happen, right after a holding call. But a ref that was trying to game the system they would probably have a pattern to their calls, like I called an offensive foul last time so I have to call something different like a lane violation.

[newacc]

Read more from the book here:

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read

Doesn't sound like a fairy tale to me. Guy is a criminal but the story adds up, especially the Bavetta part. Obvious that DB loves attention and tries to make his games exciting.

[sabar]

Possible, but the dude is in prison with no job. Who wouldn't lie for the chance at a fat check from your tell-all book? He's already infamous, of course he will try to profit from it, true or not.

[wildbill2u]

This may be extraneous and useless information, but I used to run into Nunez all the time after games at a tiny little spot called "Sonnys at the Park" that was way out on N. St. Marys at the entrance to Brackenridge Park.

He usually brought one or two refs with him and he did love San Antonio.

[tmtcsc]

This is absolute bullshit imo. We beat Phoenix and have owned them in the playoffs for years. Do you seriously think Bavetta would say half that stuff to some young ref ?

The guy is a crook and a con. He needs to make money from this book. I wouldn't get too uptight about what he says.

[tp2021]

This is like steroids in baseball...everything will be questioned.

This is awful.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I thought the Jose Canseco comparison someone made is spot on because this puts the NBA in the same spot as any major leaguer whose named was mentioned in the same sentence as HGH or steroids. If they fight it then they doth protest too much, and if they say, "No comment", that's as good as a confession in some people's eyes. Ultimately you have to put some blame on the league and the refs for allowing the sort of behavior that Crawford and Bavetta have become known for that lends even the slightest bit of credibility to Donaghy's claims.

Oddly enough it seems Phil Jackson would be the man on both sides of people's arguments. On the one hand you could say that no one talks more shit about the refs than Phil and when was the last time his teams really got shafted on calls for a whole series? Doesn't make sense that the refs would target a team just because of an owner in that light. On the other hand, you could say that he was always the coach in the big market with the biggest stars who talked the most shit about the refs and yet, he never ended up on the wrong side of the whistle? Why would that be? Hmmmmm.

From what I've read here it sounds like he could have just as easily written this book by trolling message boards like this one over the last few years, copying down every bitter fan's conspiracy theory, and claimed it as fact as a whistleblower with insider information. It's probably more bullshit than not, but like I said, Stern and league have to shoulder some of the blame for creating an environment in the league where such accusations could gain a foothold in the fanbase.

[TJastal]

It sucks that the refs are crooked, and it's just becoming more and more obvious since David Stern took over the league years ago.

Last year, the league favored

1. Lebron
2. Lakers
3. Bulls/Celtics

(in that order)

I'm sure if the knicks had any relevancy they would be way up in the list.

It's really hilarious when Stern and his crooked cronies try their damndest to affect the outcomes and fail miserably. Last year they gave it their best shot to get the hapless cavs past the magic in the ECF but no amount of bullshit calls could get it done. I loved watching the magic pummel the fuck out of crooked bastards.

[picc84]

I remember that lakers/wolves game. To me that was more fixed than the lakers/blazers game 7 - waaaay more fixed. Blazers imploded on themselves bricking everything and giving up easy points. Wolves were just victims of an agenda. That was hard to watch and I was hoping Minnie would win the game.

I believe everything out of the book. The nba is not above manipulating its product for a more profitable bottom line like most businesses do, and a lot of the stories told in the excerpts are too mundane, "boring", and obscure to be purely imaginary. Were Donaghy just making shit up I imagine many of the accusations would be a bit more fantastical.

The truth is that the NBA pulled strings to pull the plug on this book. Some damage has already been done but they quelled what could have been a firestorm on this, at least potentially. I'm reminded of Andy Dufresne mailing out his memoirs from the bank in Shawshank Redemption and the police showing up to the prison right after to dispense justice. Only with Stern being the Warden and Stu Jackson the CO.

[greywheel]

Donaghy book canceled over liability (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4603209)

Time to retitle the book "If They Fixed It" and place it next to OJ's.

[FromWayDowntown]

While I think that some of what is reported to be in this book makes sense, I have questions about Dongahy's credibility as a starting point.

On top of that, though, it sure seems like I'm not alone in questioning the veracity of things that are reportedly in the book. The fact that the publisher was willing to withdraw the book from scheduled publication over threats of litigation by the league strikes me as a pretty telling choice. Given what we know at this point, it seems plausible to me that the publisher can't independently confirm any of what Donaghy claims and doesn't trust Donaghy's assurances of truthfulness in those claims. After all, it readily backed down from fears of liability to those who are implicated by the book.

[elbamba]

I have been watching the NBA for over 30 years. I have seen many bad calls and and games that made me question the refs. However, think the game is honest and the better team wins in every series. If a game is blown here or there I am not that concerned. I do not think that it is set up and I do believe this is coming from a guy who has financial troubles and wanted to sell as many books as possible. Lets face it, if he came out and named only himself as the bad guy no one would care. He has to sell his associates out or no one would buy his book.

[Interrohater]

This can all be rectified by instituting an instant replay official or maybe some challenges, like in the NFL.

[zepn]

It's called "shading" and it happens all the time in the NBA. Just a missed call here, an and-one there - just enough to skew the odds. Teams that are shaded against can still win if they play hard enough and well enough, but the shading usually takes it's toll one way or another. The NBA rarely has to actually "throw" a game, which is good for them because it's pretty damned obvious when they do. And for everyone that says too many people would be involved, all it takes is two. The team schedules are posted before the season starts. Why won't they post the ref schedule then? Because they need certain refs at certain games, and they will only know which games as the season unfolds.

[FromWayDowntown]

The team schedules are posted before the season starts. Why won't they post the ref schedule then? Because they need certain refs at certain games, and they will only know which games as the season unfolds.

In the post-season at least, it's relatively easy to narrow down the list of officials who will work crucial games. I've tracked referee assignments in playoff games for years -- specifically to dispel arguments like yours -- and have been able, in many circumstances, to come up with a list of about 7 officials who might work a game and have all 3 of the game officials on it. I've also been able to say with certainty that a particular official will work a game.

I've posted my information and the patterns I've been able to draw from it in Spurs Talk over the course of several playoff years. And when you study the patterns, it becomes quite obvious, given the patterns, that the league: (1) sticks with the pattern; and (2) decides the pattern in advance of any given round. For the league to monkey with assignments in a particular playoff series to have specific officials work specific games in light of evolving circumstances, it would either have to have a crystal ball or depart from its assignment pattern -- and it doesn't depart from the pattern.

[Death In June]

If you're an NBA executive, I don't see why you would flex your muscle to keep this book from publication. It only furthers the admission of your guilt.

[lefty]

Didn't Tommy Nunez try to help Phoenix in 1997 vs Seatlle ????

[Obstructed_View]

:lol @ Donaghy trying to trash the NBA in an attempt to get revenge and steal money. :lmao @ the idiot NBA fans that take it hook, line and sinker.

[zepn]

I've tracked referee assignments in playoff games for years -- specifically to dispel arguments like yours --

Of course it's easy to prove what you are trying to prove...

The NBA has "done their work early", to use Pop-speak, for the playoffs. They already know which teams they will favor, and which games will be pivotal. And they have "their" refs available. And of course the NBA will have them loosely fit into a plausible rotation - they would be stupid not to - but they are still there when it matters, and they still do the NBA's bidding.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

If you're an NBA executive, I don't see why you would flex your muscle to keep this book from publication. It only furthers the admission of your guilt.

My guess is they know there's at least a little truth in one or two of the stories he tells sprinkled in among the bullshit. Worst case scenario in blocking the book is that they look a little scared of it but they can label the whole book as a pack of lies and only have to deal with it once. Worst case scenario if the book is released? They could end up with reporters and fans asking for comment on every little story mentioned in the book, pouring over hours of old footage and press releases looking for confirmation of something he claims. Maybe somebody slips up or something gets leaked that confirms some embarrassing small story or detail, no matter unimportant it might be to the integrity of the game, and there are people who will take the entire book as gospel.

[Galileo]

Best Video of All Time:

NBA: Where Rigged Games Happens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4t5RMFt5u8&feature=player_embedded

Note - You can hear the voice of Ralph Nader in the background. The ref, Bob Delaney, who lets Kobe Bryant take Mike Bibby's head off, is a former undercover FBI agent.

The anti-small market NBA conspiracy against teams like the Kings, Spurs and Bucks has been exposed!

[Galileo]

Read more from the book here:

http://deadspin.com/5392067/excerpts-from-the-book-the-nba-doesnt-want-you-to-read

Doesn't sound like a fairy tale to me. Guy is a criminal but the story adds up, especially the Bavetta part. Obvious that DB loves attention and tries to make his games exciting.

Federal prosecutions almost always use convicted criminals to prove guilt to jurors. Especially in conspiracy cases, which is 70% of the federal caseload. Don't let yourself be duped.

Tim Donaghy speaks the Truth.

[TheProfessor]

Federal prosecutions almost always use convicted criminals to prove guilt to jurors. Especially in conspiracy cases, which is 70% of the federal caseload. Don't let yourself be duped.

Tim Donaghy speaks the Truth.
So...why didn't the Fed's bring other charges? Or why haven't they continued to investigate if there's something there?

[DAF86]

:lol @ Donaghy trying to trash the NBA in an attempt to get revenge and steal money. :lmao @ the idiot NBA fans that take it hook, line and sinker.

I now understand why you call yourself "Obstructed view".

[SamoanTD]

Well it could be fake bt everybodys gna think that there team got the screw driver some point in NBA history cant wry bout the past nw jus gta look forward.

[Galileo]

So...why didn't the Fed's bring other charges? Or why haven't they continued to investigate if there's something there?

The Feds could have brought much wider charges. But too much of an attack against a giant corporation could hurt the economy.

Good back to the Spurstalk thread "NBA is Fixed!" and look at all the links I posted. Donaghy is a scapegoat.

Also, remember, Bob Delaney is a former undercover FBI agent and professional liar.

[FromWayDowntown]

Of course it's easy to prove what you are trying to prove...

The NBA has "done their work early", to use Pop-speak, for the playoffs. They already know which teams they will favor, and which games will be pivotal. And they have "their" refs available. And of course the NBA will have them loosely fit into a plausible rotation - they would be stupid not to - but they are still there when it matters, and they still do the NBA's bidding.

To be able to do such work ahead of time, the league would have to control for any number of crazy factors that it can't control.

Besides, the rotation isn't "loose." It abides to firm rules to net clear assignments. It's not merely plausible -- it's concrete.

[TheProfessor]

The Feds could have brought much wider charges. But too much of an attack against a giant corporation could hurt the economy.

Good back to the Spurstalk thread "NBA is Fixed!" and look at all the links I posted. Donaghy is a scapegoat.

Also, remember, Bob Delaney is a former undercover FBI agent and professional liar.
So it comes down to some conspiracy theory. Gotcha.

[Kermit]

I can't believe that the publisher folded as quickly as it did. The NBA must have a pretty strong bluff. Nobody could substantiate anything in the Canseco book either when it came out.

[Whisky Dog]

To be able to do such work ahead of time, the league would have to control for any number of crazy factors that it can't control.

Besides, the rotation isn't "loose." It abides to firm rules to net clear assignments. It's not merely plausible -- it's concrete.

In defense of his argument shading isn't the same as fixing. The NBA couldn't outright send Bavetta or Crawford or whoever to every big game they want altered and still keep their rigid assignments as you mentioned, but they could start that cycle of assignments knowing which teams are seeded where and allowing a ref to shade towards one team in the game he calls within the rotation. It isn't an outright fix by any imagination but it's a loose manipulation on the series done when the opportunity and motive are available. They can't keep the Spurs or Kings or Thunder or whoever small market from winning a title but they can loosely alter if the timing is right. That is completely plausible even with the rigid ref rotations, especially since only select crew chiefs work the big playoff series and finals.

[Galileo]

I can't believe that the publisher folded as quickly as it did. The NBA must have a pretty strong bluff. Nobody could substantiate anything in the Canseco book either when it came out.

You only need one witness to prove a case to a jury. It happens all the time with women who claim they were raped.

[Galileo]

So it comes down to some conspiracy theory. Gotcha.

Tim Donaghy is an eyewitness to the conspiracy. It is not a theory. Nice try.

[da_suns_fan]

My favorite Tommy Nunez story is from the 2007 playoffs when the San Antonio Spurs were able to get past the Phoenix Suns in the second round. Of course, what many fans didn't know was that Phoenix had someone working against them behind the scenes. Nunez was the group supervisor for that playoff series, and he definitely had a rooting interest.

Nunez loved the Hispanic community in San Antonio and had a lot of friends there. He had been a referee for 30 years and loved being on the road; in fact, he said that the whole reason he had become a group supervisor was to keep getting out of the house. So Nunez wanted to come back to San Antonio for the conference finals. Plus, he, like many other referees, disliked Suns owner Robert Sarver for the way he treated officials. Both of these things came into play when he prepared the referees for the games in the staff meetings. I remember laughing with him and saying, "You would love to keep coming back here." He was pointing out everything that Phoenix was able to get away with and never once told us to look for anything in regard to San Antonio. Nunez should have a championship ring on his finger.

This was the series in which Mike D'Antoni was so digusted with the officiating after game 3 he crumbled up the stat sheet and walked out of the press conference.

I dont care if theres already another thread, btw. I knew it. I freaking knew it.

[cheguevara]

The NBA is not fixed. But it is definitely influenced. This ref behaviour or worse happens in all professional sports. welcome to pro sports

[SpursFanATL]

Oh, for god's sake, really?

Still?

[LOL@MavsFan]

Get over it!!! Suns time is done yet Los Spurs are still here! GET OVER IT!

[cheguevara]

well maybe if you didn't have an asshole for an owner, you would have gotten past the Spurs :lmao

[da_suns_fan]

Oh, for god's sake, really?

Still?

Yep. This is vinidication for what everyone else already expected.

If it was your team that got screwed over, youd be just as pissed.

[da_suns_fan]

well maybe if you didn't have an asshole for an owner, you would have gotten past the Spurs :lmao

Probably. God knows they were better than the Spurs in 2007.

[TheProfessor]

OK, Suns' fans, we admit it. You lost the series because San Antonio has a vibrant Hispanic community.

[TheProfessor]

Tim Donaghy is an eyewitness to the conspiracy. It is not a theory. Nice try.
No. It's just another of your conspiracy theories. You just seriously posited that the feds would not investigate NBA officials because of the economic benefits provided by the league. Nice try.

[SpursFanATL]

OK, Suns' fans, we admit it. You lost the series because San Antonio has a vibrant Hispanic community.

:lol

[Mel_13]

Probably. God knows they were better than the Spurs in 2007.

No

[cheguevara]

ok, suns' fans, we admit it. You lost the series because san antonio has a vibrant hispanic community.

lmao

[Galileo]

GAME SIX INFO FROM THE BOOK:


"The 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings presents a stunning example of game and series manipulation at its ugliest. As the teams prepared for Game 6 at the Staples Center, Sacramento had a 3–2 lead in the series. The referees assigned to work Game 6 were Dick Bavetta, Bob Delaney (former undercover FBI agent), and Ted Bernhardt. As soon as the referees for the game were chosen, the rest of us knew immediately that there would be a Game 7. A prolonged series was good for the league, good for the networks, and good for the game. Oh, and one more thing: it was great for the big-market, star-studded Los Angeles Lakers.



In the pregame meeting prior to Game 6, the league office sent down word that certain calls-calls that would have benefitted the Lakers — were being missed by the referees. This was the type of not-so-subtle information that I and other referees were left to interpret. After receiving the dispatch, Bavetta openly talked about the fact that the league wanted a Game 7.



"If we give the benefit of the calls to the team that's down in the series, nobody's going to complain. The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win Game 7," Bavetta stated.



As history shows, Sacramento lost Game 6 in a wild come-from-behind thriller that saw the Lakers repeatedly sent to the foul line by the referees. For other NBA referees watching the game on television, it was a shameful performance by Bavetta's crew, one of the most poorly officiated games of all time."

"The 2002 series certainly wasn't the first or last time Bavetta weighed in on an important game. He also worked Game 7 of the 2000 Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and the Trail Blazers. The Lakers were down by 13 at the start of the fourth quarter when Bavetta went to work. The Lakers outscored Portland 31–13 in the fourth quarter and went on to win the game and the series. It certainly didn't hurt the Lakers that they got to shoot 37 free throws compared to a paltry 16 for the Trail Blazers."

This game was fixed. Using the video evidence, expert testimony, and the eyewitness testimony of Tim Donaghy, you could get a conviction in any jury in the world. You could also get Ted Bernhardt to testify. He is an honest ref.

[SpursFanATL]

Yep. This is vinidication for what everyone else already expected.

If it was your team that got screwed over, youd be just as pissed.

I don't think they are planning on taking down that 2007 banner from the rafters of the AT&T Center.

Dude, vindication is a championship. On the road to becoming a champion, one must stop making excuses and blaming others for one's shortcomings. You have to rip that trophy out of their hands.

[Mel_13]

GAME SIX INFO FROM THE BOOK:



This game was fixed. Using the video evidence, expert testimony, and the eyewitness testimony of Tim Donaghy, you could get a conviction in any jury in the world. You could also get Ted Bernhardt to testify. He is an honest ref.


I don't see any suggestion here that Donaghy was a witness to the conversation involving Bavetta. At best, he is relaying second-hand information. Probably why publication was canceled.

[ChumpDumper]

GAME SIX INFO FROM THE BOOK:



This game was fixed. Using the video evidence, expert testimony, and the eyewitness testimony of Tim Donaghy, you could get a conviction in any jury in the world. You could also get Ted Bernhardt to testify. He is an honest ref.No corroboration + untrustworthy witness = reasonable doubt.

The stories could be believable, but other sources need to come forward.

[EricB]

Yep. This is vinidication for what everyone else already expected.

If it was your team that got screwed over, youd be just as pissed.


Whats the excuse for game 1?

Suck it up Suns fan, the better team won.

[TheProfessor]

GAME SIX INFO FROM THE BOOK:



This game was fixed. Using the video evidence, expert testimony, and the eyewitness testimony of Tim Donaghy, you could get a conviction in any jury in the world. You could also get Ted Bernhardt to testify. He is an honest ref.
Same thing with Miami over Dallas in the Finals. But wait, the league wanted Dallas to beat us that year, right? Except they wanted us to beat the Suns in '07 because we're such a popular, big market team.

:sleep

[FromWayDowntown]

In defense of his argument shading isn't the same as fixing. The NBA couldn't outright send Bavetta or Crawford or whoever to every big game they want altered and still keep their rigid assignments as you mentioned, but they could start that cycle of assignments knowing which teams are seeded where and allowing a ref to shade towards one team in the game he calls within the rotation. It isn't an outright fix by any imagination but it's a loose manipulation on the series done when the opportunity and motive are available. They can't keep the Spurs or Kings or Thunder or whoever small market from winning a title but they can loosely alter if the timing is right. That is completely plausible even with the rigid ref rotations, especially since only select crew chiefs work the big playoff series and finals.

My dispute has nothing to do with his allegations of shading; it runs only to his contention that the NBA won't publicize assignments, in essence, because doing so would deprive it of the opportunity to determine or influence outcomes.

I don't think the league does selective scheduling as things progress; I've got too much data to refute that possibility.

[Galileo]

No. It's just another of your conspiracy theories. You just seriously posited that the feds would not investigate NBA officials because of the economic benefits provided by the league. Nice try.

The Feds let Bernie Madoff go for 15 years. They knew about him in the early 1990s, that's on the record.

[Galileo]

I don't see any suggestion here that Donaghy was a witness to the conversation involving Bavetta. At best, he is relaying second-hand information. Probably why publication was canceled.

He is not only an eyewitness, but also an expert witness. Expert witnesses can testify according to their opinions. That is a basic rule of evidence.

[lefty]

This was the series in which Mike D'Antoni was so digusted with the officiating after game 3 he crumbled up the stat sheet and walked out of the press conference.

I dont care if theres already another thread, btw. I knew it. I freaking knew it.
Didn't Tommy Nunez try to help Phoenix in 1997 vs Seatlle ????

[ChumpDumper]

He is not only an eyewitness, but also an expert witness. Expert witnesses can testify according to their opinions. That is a basic rule of evidence.I guess you also know about the rules regarding hearsay as well, right?

[Galileo]

I guess you also know about the rules regarding hearsay as well, right?

A good prosecution can get around the hearsay problem.

[EricB]

A good prosecution can get around the hearsay problem.

:lol

Why bother posting on a basketball website if its fixed?

Take up basket weaving or whatever.

[Mel_13]

He is not only an eyewitness, but also an expert witness. Expert witnesses can testify according to their opinions. That is a basic rule of evidence.

He was in the room with Bavetta before Game 6, 2002 WCF?

[Whisky Dog]

My dispute has nothing to do with his allegations of shading; it runs only to his contention that the NBA won't publicize assignments, in essence, because doing so would deprive it of the opportunity to determine or influence outcomes.

I don't think the league does selective scheduling as things progress; I've got too much data to refute that possibility.

You're right, there is no way the NBA could have their pet refs at their disposal to go to whichever game they please and still keep the schedule they keep. That's why it's impossible to fix the games as too much would be needed but it's entirely possible to shade outcomes within the structure they follow. That's what I'm interested to find out because it appears that's what Tim is claiming.

Jose Canseco definitely helps to show that a disgraceful person can be telling the truth in certain situations.

[EricB]

You're right, there is no way the NBA could have their pet refs at their disposal to go to whichever game they please and still keep the schedule they keep. That's why it's impossible to fix the games as too much would be needed but it's entirely possible to shade outcomes within the structure they follow. That's what I'm interested to find out because it appears that's what Tim is claiming.

Jose Canseco definitely helps to show that a disgraceful person can be telling the truth in certain situations.


Jose said he was gonna out 5 more big stars who did steroids two years ago.

All I've seen from him lately is boxing kangaroos and reality shows.

I've yet to hear who these 5 super stars are recently.

[zepn]

To be able to do such work ahead of time, the league would have to control for any number of crazy factors that it can't control.

Besides, the rotation isn't "loose." It abides to firm rules to net clear assignments. It's not merely plausible -- it's concrete.

Crazy factors. Like which teams they want to help, and which games would probably be pivotal. Not that hard. And both of which I have already mentioned.

If the ref assignments are firm and "concrete" then they actually ARE naming the refs before the playoffs. Please show me that "concrete" list from last season with the date it was published.

I call bullshit.

[TheProfessor]

He is not only an eyewitness, but also an expert witness. Expert witnesses can testify according to their opinions. That is a basic rule of evidence.
Expert witnesses are limited to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact or determine a fact at issue. What Bavetta allegedly said falls outside this. Also, it's hearsay, and I can't think of an exception it falls under at the moment that would get it in. You're essentially offering Bavetta's statements for their truth - that he and other officials fixed games. Even a good prosecutor would have difficulty getting that in, defense would take care of it in limine.

[FromWayDowntown]

Crazy factors. Like which teams they want to help, and which games would probably be pivotal. Not that hard. And both of which I have already mentioned.

If the ref assignments are firm and "concrete" then they actually ARE naming the refs before the playoffs. Please show me that "concrete" list from last season with the date it was published.

I call bullshit.

After posting that, I thought about it and "concrete" was a poor choice of words. Nevertheless, the rotation is clear and it would be obvious to anyone who closely follows the assignment if the league deviated from it to do what you suppose it does.

[Obstructed_View]

Pathetic Suns fan + idiot 9/11 conspiracy theorist = comedy gold.

[Galileo]

No corroboration + untrustworthy witness = reasonable doubt.

The stories could be believable, but other sources need to come forward.

Donaghy is a credible witness. Nothing he has said has been shown to be untrue. He has an excellent background, as he was an NBA ref over a dozen years, with many awards for merit. He has also agreed to cooperate with the prosecution because he is concerned about corruption in the NBA. He is concerned about NBA fans. He is especially concerned about the anti-small market conspiracy that has robbed much glory from teams like the Spurs.

He has nothing to gain by telling the truth, and everything to lose.

[FromWayDowntown]

:lol

Why bother posting on a basketball website if its fixed?

Take up basket weaving or whatever.

This is the point that frequently gets me. If you think the thing isn't an honest competition, then why devote much time rooting for a team and players that you're convinced are deprived of a chance to prevail by the machinery of the league?

Then again, there are people who love wrestling, too.

[Mel_13]

Donaghy is a credible witness. Nothing he has said has been shown to be untrue. He has an excellent background, as he was an NBA ref over a dozen years, with many awards for merit. He has also agreed to cooperate with the prosecution because he is concerned about corruption in the NBA. He is concerned about NBA fans. He is especially concerned about the anti-small market conspiracy that has robbed much glory from teams like the Spurs.

He has nothing to gain by telling the truth, and everything to lose.


Which is why he is lying.

[Galileo]

Expert witnesses are limited to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that would assist the trier of fact or determine a fact at issue. What Bavetta allegedly said falls outside this. Also, it's hearsay, and I can't think of an exception it falls under at the moment that would get it in. You're essentially offering Bavetta's statements for their truth - that he and other officials fixed games. Even a good prosecutor would have difficulty getting that in, defense would take care of it in limine.

Donaghy is an expert witness concerning the protocols of NBA referees. He is also a convicted game fixer, so he is a certified expert on how NBA games are fixed.

[TheProfessor]

Donaghy is a credible witness. Nothing he has said has been shown to be untrue. He has an excellent background, as he was an NBA ref over a dozen years, with many awards for merit. He has also agreed to cooperate with the prosecution because he is concerned about corruption in the NBA. He is concerned about NBA fans. He is especially concerned about the anti-small market conspiracy that has robbed much glory from teams like the Spurs.

He has nothing to gain by telling the truth, and everything to lose.
He's a convicted felon. He has shady associates with mob connections. Just the fact that he has agreed to work with the government would give the defense ample ammunition to impeach his motives.

[Whisky Dog]

Jose said he was gonna out 5 more big stars who did steroids two years ago.

All I've seen from him lately is boxing kangaroos and reality shows.

I've yet to hear who these 5 super stars are recently.

Doesn't take away from the fact he exposed a lot of big name guys which later was proven true. Even a liar will tell the truth if the truth benefits him. Tim D may or may not be in that boat, but he certainly would have access to the knowledge he's claiming.

[FromWayDowntown]

Donaghy is a credible witness. Nothing he has said has been shown to be untrue. He has an excellent background, as he was an NBA ref over a dozen years, with many awards for merit. He has also agreed to cooperate with the prosecution because he is concerned about corruption in the NBA. He is concerned about NBA fans. He is especially concerned about the anti-small market conspiracy that has robbed much glory from teams like the Spurs.

He has nothing to gain by telling the truth, and everything to lose.

He's a felon who has lost his job -- a fairly good paying job at that. He has everything to gain by telling a spectacular story. He can sells books, he can do paid interviews, he can do any number of things to drum up income through his "revelations." And he has an apparent need to drum up income, given that he's no longer working in a lucrative field.

He defrauded a league by working in cahoots with mafiosos, too. So he's a felon with mob ties.

But you're right -- by and large, those guys are known for their credibility and truthfulness.

[zepn]

My dispute has nothing to do with his allegations of shading; it runs only to his contention that the NBA won't publicize assignments, in essence, because doing so would deprive it of the opportunity to determine or influence outcomes.

I don't think the league does selective scheduling as things progress; I've got too much data to refute that possibility.

I said no such thing - that publishing the list would deprive the NBA of the opportunity to determine or influence outcomes. They would still do it. It would just be harder to hide.

If you, using your data, can predict exactly which refs will be working exactly which games before the playoffs start - and you have proof of this (you can refute not just the probability, but even the possibility of selective scheduling (a tall order indeed) - then I will stfu. If not, then you should.

edit: removed the word "concrete" after seeing your last post.

[TheProfessor]

Donaghy is an expert witness concerning the protocols of NBA referees. He is also a convicted game fixer, so he is a certified expert on how NBA games are fixed.
Being an expert on referee protocol does not mean you can testify as to another referee's fixing of games, that does not fall under that particular expertise. You're shoehorning hearsay. Nor can one be certified as a "game fixer" because you're convicted. That's absurd.

[Whisky Dog]

He's a felon who has lost his job -- a fairly good paying job at that. He has everything to gain by telling a spectacular story. He can sells books, he can do paid interviews, he can do any number of things to drum up income through his "revelations." And he has an apparent need to drum up income, given that he's no longer working in a lucrative field.

He defrauded a league by working in cahoots with mafiosos, too. So he's a felon with mob ties.

But you're right -- by and large, those guys are known for their credibility and truthfulness.

Not that those types of criminals are usually truthful, but a criminal will tell the truth if the truth benefits him. He will also lie if a lie benefits him. In this case both could easily be true so you can't just discount what he's saying as definitely false.

[Galileo]

He's a convicted felon. He has shady associates with mob connections. Just the fact that he has agreed to work with the government would give the defense ample ammunition to impeach his motives.

The Feds use convicted felons all the time in proving conspiracy cases to juries. The general public may not know this, and the people who hear Stern's bullshit spin may not know this, but I know this, you know this, and anybody knowledgable about the "justice" system knows this.

Convicted felons are used to prove drug conspiracies is especially common. Almost every case uses them. People who snitch to get their sentences reduced are used all the time as well and juries believe them.

[EricB]

The Feds use convicted felons all the time in proving conspiracy cases to juries. The general public may not know this, and the people who hear Stern's bullshit spin may not know this, but I know this, you know this, and anybody knowledgable about the "justice" system knows this.

Convicted felons are used to prove drug conspiracies is especially common. Almost every case uses them. People who snitch to get their sentences reduced are used all the time as well and juries believe them.


Stop watching the Spurs then.

End the misery.

[ChumpDumper]

A good prosecution can get around the hearsay problem.How? Which exception to the hearsay rule would be used in this case?

[Galileo]

Being an expert on referee protocol does not mean you can testify as to another referee's fixing of games, that does not fall under that particular expertise. You're shoehorning hearsay. Nor can one be certified as a "game fixer" because you're convicted. That's absurd.

It does if the witness has firsthand knowledge of the fix. Conspiracy laws make it much easier to bring hearsay into the courtroom. Donaghy could also fudge and/or spin his testimony a little to allow evidence to be brought in. That is what usually happens in federal court cases. They witnesses are coached so they say the right thing.

The real beauty of the system is that a strong federal case could prove Bavetta was guilty even if he was innocent.

[zepn]

This is the point that frequently gets me. If you think the thing isn't an honest competition, then why devote much time rooting for a team and players that you're convinced are deprived of a chance to prevail by the machinery of the league?

Then again, there are people who love wrestling, too.

Why go to work every day when capitalism mostly benefits the rich? Because you still get something out of it.

Then why bitch? Because it is wrong, and it could be better.

I see this the other way around. People like you are so wedded to the NBA, and the vicarious entertainment it brings you, that you will do anything to prove that it's NOT fixed so that it continues to mean something to you.

[Galileo]

Stop watching the Spurs then.

End the misery.

The Spurs are the victims of a massive conspiracy. That is why I root for the Spurs, they can beat the New World Order.

[ChumpDumper]

It does if the witness has firsthand knowledge of the fix. Conspiracy laws make it much easier to bring hearsay into the courtroom. Donaghy could also fudge and/or spin his testimony a little to allow evidence to be brought in. That is what usually happens in federal court cases. They witnesses are coached so they say the right thing.

The real beauty of the system is that a strong federal case could prove Bavetta was guilty even if he was innocent.:lmao

You're saying Donaghy could perjure himself in order to allow hearsay evidence to be entered?

I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem to be a sound legal strategy, counselor.

[TheProfessor]

It does if the witness has firsthand knowledge of the fix. Conspiracy laws make it much easier to bring hearsay into the courtroom. Donaghy could also fudge and/or spin his testimony a little to allow evidence to be brought in. That is what usually happens in federal court cases. They witnesses are coached so they say the right thing.

The real beauty of the system is that a strong federal case could prove Bavetta was guilty even if he was innocent.
Conspiracy/hearsay are very different from expert witness rules. You're mixing things up a bit. You're talking about the coconspirator exception to hearsay. Government would still have to prove up a conspiracy pre-trial. Which, again, they did not even feel the need to further investigate apparently.

[ChumpDumper]

The Spurs are the victims of a massive conspiracy. That is why I root for the Spurs, they can beat the New World Order.Donaghy said the Spurs benefited from the conspiracy as well.

[TheProfessor]

:lmao

You're saying Donaghy could perjure himself in order to allow hearsay evidence to be entered?

I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem to be a sound legal strategy, counselor.
If Donaghy was the lone government witness, they would get absolutely massacred. A competent defense lawyer would rip him apart on cross-examination.

[Galileo]

If Donaghy was the lone government witness, they would get absolutely massacred. A competent defense lawyer would rip him apart on cross-examination.

How so? And what if the defendent had a public defender?

[Galileo]

Donaghy said the Spurs benefited from the conspiracy as well.

He said it was from a personal grudge, not part of the wider conspiracy.

[Galileo]

Conspiracy/hearsay are very different from expert witness rules. You're mixing things up a bit. You're talking about the coconspirator exception to hearsay. Government would still have to prove up a conspiracy pre-trial. Which, again, they did not even feel the need to further investigate apparently.

The credibility of Donaghy is not an issue at pre-trial. The standard is "if true" is there a preponderance of evidence of a conspiracy. Donaghy is a personal eyewitness to a conspiracy.

[Galileo]

:lmao

You're saying Donaghy could perjure himself in order to allow hearsay evidence to be entered?

I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem to be a sound legal strategy, counselor.

Spinning testimony is not perjury. It is a common legal strategy, although not one you want to admit to.

[The Truth #6]

It's like the two different conspiracy theories came together:

1) Stern fixes games

2) The refs are rogues who can't be controlled

Well, the timing is incredible.

[ChumpDumper]

Spinning testimony is not perjury. It is a common legal strategy, although not one you want to admit to.Please tell us all how Donaghy can legally "fudge" and "spin" his testimony to effect an exception to the hearsay rule.

You said he could do it; tell us how.

[TheProfessor]

The credibility of Donaghy is not an issue at pre-trial. The standard is "if true" is there a preponderance of evidence of a conspiracy. Donaghy is a personal eyewitness to a conspiracy.
Donaghy is not sufficient to create a preponderance of evidence, especially if it allegedly involves the NBA itself. You're talking "more likely than not." You haven't introduced enough evidence based on Donaghy's word.

Also, is the suit against the NBA and the officials as their agents? You could get it in as a statement against interest if the latter, but you'd have to prove up the conspiracy with the NBA to do so anyway. Don't see how you can implicate the NBA without more than what you've got.

[King]

You guys really think he is just making that all up? All the details and names and dates and facts? All just completely made up, huh?

Get your head out of the sand. I imagine there's more truth in that book than false info. I still believe talent decides most games, but I believe there's a great deal of bias -- personal, as in the Javie/Iverson example, referee games, etc - and league-wise, extending series, superstar calls, etc -- that is a large variable in outcomes.

The guy got pinched for gambling - and that shoots his credibility for this situation? Yeah, he's trying to make a buck because that gambling well dried up -- but I'd be willing to bet (no pun intended) there's a LOT of truth in this, and that, like Timvp said, this does not end well (for the league.)

If he's lying about it, then Stafford, Bavetta, Javie, et al should be talking to lawyers about pressing slander/libel charges, right? I didn't see a lot of people suing Canseco, and everyone thought he was lying.

[TheProfessor]

You guys really think he is just making that all up? All the details and names and dates and facts? All just completely made up, huh?

Get your head out of the sand. I imagine there's more truth in that book than false info. I still believe talent decides most games, but I believe there's a great deal of bias -- personal, as in the Javie/Iverson example, referee games, etc - and league-wise, extending series, superstar calls, etc -- that is a large variable in outcomes.

The guy got pinched for gambling - and that shoots his credibility for this situation? Yeah, he's trying to make a buck because that gambling well dried up -- but I'd be willing to bet (no pun intended) there's a LOT of truth in this, and that, like Timvp said, this does not end well (for the league.)

If he's lying about it, then Stafford, Bavetta, Javie, et al should be talking to lawyers about pressing slander/libel charges, right? I didn't see a lot of people suing Canseco, and everyone thought he was lying.
Apparently, someone already talked to their lawyers, the book got pulled. Publisher's not willing to take the heat.

[Whisky Dog]

There's no way the games are fixed. Impossible to have predetermined outcomes. That's why it's still interesting to watch - the league can only shade so far and the team being called against still can win the games and a title if they're disciplined enough and play well enough to overcome a few calls. To me the Spurs 4 titles are a testament to this - why would Stern want to lose money by having the small market team in the finals for 4 out of 10 seasons? The Spurs have overcome just like others have as well. Is it fair? No, but it's nit predetermined so it's still very entertaining to watch. My hope is this book and a controversy causes the league to back off of manipulating games for a while.

[crc21209]

I still don't understand the outrage in the Suns-Spurs series..the officiating wasn't nearly as bad as many other series' this decade, and people really twisted it..even in the infamous youtube video about the Spurs getting calls in that series, the calls aren't even that bad..

I didn't hear any non-Spurs fans crying about the officiating in the Dallas series..

LOL @ the Spurs getting calls due to San Antonio's Mexican community..

The Spurs-Suns series doesnt have shit on how bad the Kings-Lakers 02' WCF's were called. Now THAT shit was rigged.

[duncan228]

Ref excerpt doesn’t read as tall tale for teams (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=dw-donaghybook102909&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)
By Dan Wetzel

The biggest problem the NBA has in trying to squash, defuse and discredit anything disgraced referee Tim Donaghy says is that many of its own players, coaches and front office executives are predisposed to believe the guy.

In a sweet bit of irony, Donaghy wrote a book about corruption in NBA officiating while serving time in a federal prison for being the most corrupt NBA official ever. He’s currently back behind bars for violating the parole agreement that sprung him from his original federal gambling charges.

While publisher Random House will reportedly not publish “Blowing the Whistle: The Culture of Fraud in the NBA” because of liability concerns, deadspin.com printed what it calls excerpts of the book.

The NBA denies it threatened any legal action against Random House in an effort to stop the book, league spokesman Tim Frank said. It’s far more likely the publisher pulled back when its senior legal team got a look at the completed manuscript that lacks corroboration for the most serious allegations. If those passages were stricken, the sales potential of the book would likely fall apart.

In today’s media world though, that hardly matters. A website ran what it received and now it’s available for public consumption.

Whether or not Donaghy’s allegations are true, most of them are believable. Not only to anyone who has watched a game, but the league’s own rank-and-file players and coaches.

Donaghy admits stars get preferential treatment, some refs have it in for some players and coaches, and a losing home team is likely to get a favorable whistle to make it competitive.

By understanding the dynamics of intra-league relationships and referee tendencies during his 13 years with the NBA, Donaghy writes he was able to gamble successfully on the outcome.

Ask around the NBA this week and you won’t find too many people outside the league office dismissing Donaghy’s claims.

“I read it last night and was laughing, and said, ‘Yep, that’s about right,” one team executive said. “I don’t think anyone is going to dispute the possibility.”

If the NBA’s own front-office people believe this, then how can fans simply dismiss it?

Consider Rasheed Wallace, who has recorded a record number of technical fouls during his career-long battles with refs. He earned many of them, but he also claimed the refs had it in for him.

“Some of them cats are felonious, man,” ’Sheed famously declared, even before Donaghy became a felon.

Was Wallace targeted? Well, here’s Donaghy, according to Deadspin’s excerpt:

“To have a little fun at the expense of the worst troublemakers, the referees working the game would sometimes make a modest friendly wager amongst themselves: first ref to give one of the bad boys a technical foul wouldn’t have to tip the ball boy that night.

“After the opening tip, it was hilarious as the three of us immediately focused our full attention on the intended victim, waiting for something, anything, to justify a technical foul. If the guy so much as looked at one of us and mumbled, we rang him up. Later in the referees’ locker room, we would down a couple of brews, eat some chicken wings, and laugh like hell.”

This is confirmation of what nearly every player in the league suspected.

The most damning allegations are against a fellow referee, who Donaghy names but I won’t. The allegations are uncorroborated and some comments attributed to the ref are not sourced.

The charge is huge though, a claim that the NBA used certain refs to determine games and extend playoff series.

Across the league, many have whispered the same suspicions about certain referees. Worse, this particular ref worked many notoriously suspect playoff games.

That includes the 2002 Western Conference finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings that Donaghy called, “a stunning example of game and series manipulation at its ugliest.”

Elizabeth Ventura, the NBA’s senior vice president of communications, said in a statement Thursday that Donaghy’s allegations were investigated by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2008, and that the only criminal conduct discovered was that of Donaghy. The latest allegations, Ventura said, will be forwarded to former federal prosecutor Lawrence Pedowitz, who conducted an in-house review of the league’s officiating program two years ago.

The suggestion of a league-office effort to control the games is where I generally draw the line on these conspiracies. Individual referees showing blatant favoritism or vengeance? Absolutely, that’s human nature.

The idea of David Stern sitting in his Manhattan tower committing federal crimes and risking the future of a billion-dollar business to potentially make a few more million from a favorable outcome?

Nope.

I don’t believe it’s true in the NBA, MLB, college football or any other sport (other than boxing) where referees are currently under fire. These vast plans would be suicidal for people with little motivation to conduct them.

Besides, in the NBA, there have been too many Finals sweeps. There’s been too many Pistons-Spurs series. There’s been too many games begging for referee intervention that never arrived.

There are plenty of NBA fans who won’t ever agree with me, and, courtesy of Tim Donaghy, there’s more grist for the mill. That’s fine. No one can be completely sure what’s true or not.

The NBA can only deny it all.

The league’s biggest problem is that many of the most convinced conspiracy theorists are drawing league paychecks. And if they aren’t buying the NBA’s denial, why should anyone else?

[Whisky Dog]

Wow I'm surprised a team exec came out with that. Sounds like they know the game but would never blow the whistle because doing so would take all that fat bacon out of their mouths as well. Better to lose and be rich than not play and be poor.

[Galileo]

Donaghy is not sufficient to create a preponderance of evidence, especially if it allegedly involves the NBA itself. You're talking "more likely than not." You haven't introduced enough evidence based on Donaghy's word.

Also, is the suit against the NBA and the officials as their agents? You could get it in as a statement against interest if the latter, but you'd have to prove up the conspiracy with the NBA to do so anyway. Don't see how you can implicate the NBA without more than what you've got.

I made an error in my last post. The standard is not preponderance of evidence. that standard is "if true" (what Donaghy says), is that evidence of a conspiracy.

[Galileo]

There's no way the games are fixed. Impossible to have predetermined outcomes. That's why it's still interesting to watch - the league can only shade so far and the team being called against still can win the games and a title if they're disciplined enough and play well enough to overcome a few calls. To me the Spurs 4 titles are a testament to this - why would Stern want to lose money by having the small market team in the finals for 4 out of 10 seasons? The Spurs have overcome just like others have as well. Is it fair? No, but it's nit predetermined so it's still very entertaining to watch. My hope is this book and a controversy causes the league to back off of manipulating games for a while.

The Spurs would ahve won 10 titles without the anti-small market conspiracy.

[Galileo]

It's like the two different conspiracy theories came together:

1) Stern fixes games

2) The refs are rogues who can't be controlled

Well, the timing is incredible.

That is common, and is no different than a mob boss orchestarting conspiracies, while lower level mobsters go off and do their own conspiracies.

[ChumpDumper]

Please tell us all how Donaghy can legally "fudge" and "spin" his testimony to effect an exception to the hearsay rule.

You said he could do it; tell us how.

[Galileo]

The Sacremento Bee newspaper did an investigation a couple years ago, and proved that the FBI did not do a real investigation. The Feds limited the "investigation" to one scapegoat. This is common with most political scandals.

Links to their stories have been posted here. Or try a google.

[Galileo]

He can do it, if he doesn't get caught.

[ChumpDumper]

He can do it, if he doesn't get caught.That isn't an answer.
Please tell us all how Donaghy can legally "fudge" and "spin" his testimony to effect an exception to the hearsay rule.

You said he could do it; tell us how.

[Galileo]

Apparently, someone already talked to their lawyers, the book got pulled. Publisher's not willing to take the heat.

Deadspin is taking the heat. Thank God for the Internet. Let's play ball, folks.

[Galileo]

That isn't an answer.

It is an answer. Government witnesses lie and fudge under oath all the time. So do cops. Why can't Donaghy do it, if it is for a higher cause. getting important evidence in front of the jury is important.

[ChumpDumper]

It is an answer. Government witnesses lie and fudge under oath all the time. So do cops. Why can't Donaghy do it, if it is for a higher cause. getting important evidence in front of the jury is important.You just keep saying he can do it.

Tell us how he can do it, counselor.

[tp2021]

Fucking ChumpDumper! What an asshole! Shit!

[duncan228]

NBA to investigate new accusations by Tim Donaghy (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-donaghyallegations&prov=ap&type=lgns)
By Brian Mahoney

The NBA will review accusations by former referee Tim Donaghy that were posted online—even though the publisher is blowing the whistle on the book they were to appear in.

Random House said Thursday it won’t go forward with the tell-all Donaghy wrote in prison.

“After a close legal review of the final manuscript of “Blowing the Whistle” by Tim Donaghy, and our independent evaluation of some of the author’s sources and statements, Triumph Books and Random House have decided not to go forward with the book’s publication,” spokesman Stuart Applebaum said in a statement. “Our decision is wholly our own and was made without consultation with any outside parties or individuals.”

Still, the NBA said the allegations that appeared on the Web site deadspin.com will be forwarded to Lawrence B. Pedowitz, who conducted the review of the officiating program following the Donaghy gambling scandal that rocked the league in 2007.

“As with all allegations concerning the integrity of our officiating program, these latest assertions by Mr. Donaghy will be turned over to Mr. Pedowitz for a complete review,” senior vice president of communications Elizabeth Ventura said.

The league also said it has been reassured that the Pedowitz investigation, which was completed last fall, found Donaghy to be the only official involved in criminal conduct.

Donaghy admitted taking cash payoffs from gamblers for picks on games, including ones he officiated. He was sentenced to 15 months for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce.

He worked on the book in prison. The excerpts include accusations of wagering between officials working games, favoritism toward star players, and desires by the league to extend playoff series. Donaghy, who already made similar allegations during court proceedings, also criticizes a number of referees, including Dick Bavetta, Tommy Nunez and Steve Javie, of misconduct.

The referees say they are disappointed but not surprised by their former colleague’s actions.

“This continues to be the Tim that we know,” referees union spokesman Lloyd Pierson said. “He repeatedly attempts to highlight himself in the media, but the 59 NBA referees will continue to officiate games with the utmost integrity and the focus will remain on the 2009-2010 NBA season.”

[Galileo]

NBA to investigate new accusations by Tim Donaghy (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-donaghyallegations&prov=ap&type=lgns)
By Brian Mahoney

The NBA will review accusations by former referee Tim Donaghy that were posted online—even though the publisher is blowing the whistle on the book they were to appear in.

Random House said Thursday it won’t go forward with the tell-all Donaghy wrote in prison.

“After a close legal review of the final manuscript of “Blowing the Whistle” by Tim Donaghy, and our independent evaluation of some of the author’s sources and statements, Triumph Books and Random House have decided not to go forward with the book’s publication,” spokesman Stuart Applebaum said in a statement. “Our decision is wholly our own and was made without consultation with any outside parties or individuals.”

Still, the NBA said the allegations that appeared on the Web site deadspin.com will be forwarded to Lawrence B. Pedowitz, who conducted the review of the officiating program following the Donaghy gambling scandal that rocked the league in 2007.

“As with all allegations concerning the integrity of our officiating program, these latest assertions by Mr. Donaghy will be turned over to Mr. Pedowitz for a complete review,” senior vice president of communications Elizabeth Ventura said.

The league also said it has been reassured that the Pedowitz investigation, which was completed last fall, found Donaghy to be the only official involved in criminal conduct.

Donaghy admitted taking cash payoffs from gamblers for picks on games, including ones he officiated. He was sentenced to 15 months for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce.

He worked on the book in prison. The excerpts include accusations of wagering between officials working games, favoritism toward star players, and desires by the league to extend playoff series. Donaghy, who already made similar allegations during court proceedings, also criticizes a number of referees, including Dick Bavetta, Tommy Nunez and Steve Javie, of misconduct.

The referees say they are disappointed but not surprised by their former colleague’s actions.

“This continues to be the Tim that we know,” referees union spokesman Lloyd Pierson said. “He repeatedly attempts to highlight himself in the media, but the 59 NBA referees will continue to officiate games with the utmost integrity and the focus will remain on the 2009-2010 NBA season.”

Good find.

But chumpdumper would do a better investiagtion than the NBA.

[ChumpDumper]

I think local and federal authorities would do a better job, if there is actually anything to investigate.

[Galileo]

I think local and federal authorities would do a better job, if there is actually anything to investigate.

I agree with that.

[withcheese]

Donaghy is not sufficient to create a preponderance of evidence, especially if it allegedly involves the NBA itself. You're talking "more likely than not." You haven't introduced enough evidence based on Donaghy's word.

Also, is the suit against the NBA and the officials as their agents? You could get it in as a statement against interest if the latter, but you'd have to prove up the conspiracy with the NBA to do so anyway. Don't see how you can implicate the NBA without more than what you've got.

Admission by a party-opponent, FRE 801(d)(2)


After receiving the dispatch, Bavetta openly talked about the fact that the league wanted a Game 7.

"If we give the benefit of the calls to the team that's down in the series, nobody's going to complain. The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win Game 7," Bavetta stated.

It's unclear whether Donaghy personally heard Bavetta make that statement, but it would be covered by 801(d)(2) if he did.

If so, the statement isn't hearsay, and is admissible as substantive evidence.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Let me get this straight? They helped the Spurs win because some guy wanted to stay away from his wife?

Weak.

You're not married, are you?

[Baseline]

The Spurs have won four titles as a small market team, but I have always maintained that we had to be 10-12 points better than any other team in the league in order to accomplish that.

We all saw how monumentally difficult it was to beat Laker teams through the last ten years, yet we've done it several times. But the Spurs have never repeated.

We lost in 2004 because of the 0.4 shot that could only be allowed to count in an alternate universe (i.e. the NBA), we lost in 2006 to a Mavs team because Cuban influenced the refs so heavily -- and at the end of regulation in the pivotal Game 7, TD got an offensive rebound with 1 second left and got blatantly hacked on the arm by either Diop or Nowitzki yet didn't get the call. The game went into OT and we lost. Well, had the correct call been made, Tim would have been on the line with the score tied with two shots and one second left. So you tell me if that no-call affected the outcome. And then in 2008, there was the no-call on the Brent Barry play. Gee, that was against guess who...the Lakers. If Brent gets that call, he's shooting at least two fee throws to tie that game, and possibly three free throws to win it.

Some may say these three incidents are minor things which can't alter the outcome of a series. Well, I've been a player in various leagues, and have reffed a few games along the way as well, and it's blatantly obvious that if you pick your spots, you can affect the outcome of a certain game quite easily. And depending on what game it is, it can affect the entire series. That's a lot of what Donaghy is saying...refs know what they're doing, and they can very subtly affect things when they need to. It's just a fact. And I for one think they do, and they certainly do when it comes to the Lakers. The Lakers have been the most obvious beneficiaries of shady officiating in the history of the NBA. they literally won the 2002 title because of it, and that's only one instance.

[Twisted_Dawg]

Do you guys think it a bit stange that in Doneghy's excerpts, he did not mention that legendary fixer, Bennett Salvatore?

[senorglory]

I agree, too many variables to fix outcomes across the board, but it doesn't require a tin-foil hate type conspiracy theory to believe the NBA manipulates games/seasons/series.

The most compelling part of Donaghy's excerpt is the discussion of pre-game preparation of the ref team, where they are prepped/ primed by the NBA to make certain calls, and Donaghy's observation that the emphasis can be decidedly one-sided.

[picc84]

The NBA will investigate the allegations against itself. haha

Thats like OJ being assigned lead prosecutor in his double murder case.

[Galileo]

The NBA will investigate the allegations against itself. haha

Thats like OJ being assigned lead prosecutor in his double murder case.

OJ was innocent. If you want the proof, I'll post it here.

[diego]

the wetzel article wraps it up nicely

its kind of surprising there is even a scandal. of course it would be nice if it didnt happen but thats utopic. in every judgement a person makes, be it a judge, accountant, ref, or whatever, you have a probable chance that either incompetence, unprofessionalism, or biases born of invested interests are going to distort their judgement. Its a fact of life and it happens everywhere including sports. thats why teams send videos and lobby their cases. And of course, I feel the spurs could have been more successful, but at the same time I know that when they won it was because they played so good that the refs didnt matter. the suns series, I'd have to see a specific example of the suns being penalized for something the spurs werent, and the duncan example when elson gets knocked down doesnt count because there was no raja bell to create an altercation.

[Twisted_Dawg]

OJ was innocent. If you want the proof, I'll post it here.


Okay Galileo......you're on. Post it.

[Obstructed_View]

You guys really think he is just making that all up? All the details and names and dates and facts? All just completely made up, huh?

Um, yes. He had a gambling problem and got into debt. He then influenced the outcomes of NBA games for organized crime. Since he was hung out to dry by the NBA, that gives him not only a financial interest as well as a revenge motivation to say whatever he can and drag people down with him, taking advantage of the paranoia of idiot fans in order to make himself look like just a cog in a big corrupt machine instead of a lying cheating sack of shit who betrayed the trust of his occupation for his own personal financial gain. The overwhelming majority of his allegations are things that he didn't actually witness.

Five minutes surfing the Internet will net you a list of the games that fans are most paranoid about. Five more minutes will tell you who officiated every single one of those games. If you know every one of those guys, it's pretty easy to make up a story that fits the facts at hand.

[Galileo]

Okay Galileo......you're on. Post it.

Mass Deception! You have all been duped!

The OJ Simpson trial was the crown jewel of the police state; makes the public think that people acquitted by juries are still guilty, even when they are proven innocent!

You can't win!!!

You are presumed innocent unless proven guilty!

PROOF that OJ Simpson is INNOCENT of murder!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795&hl

:ihit

[Galileo]

Check this out, a solitary man defending us from the police state:

F. LEE BAILEY -- CROSS-EXAMINATION of a witness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9L4tbAhuwg

Did the L.A. Coroner lie on the witness stand?
http://revver.com/video/607707/oj-simpson-conspiracy-1-serpents-rising-did-the-la-coroner-lie-on-the-witness-stand/

Hidden Phone Records!
http://revver.com/video/607683/oj-simpson-conspiracy-2-serpents-rising-hidden-phone-records/

Ron Goldman's criminal file!
http://revver.com/video/607722/oj-simpson-conspiracy-4-serpents-rising-ron-goldmans-criminal-file/

[redzero]

I highly doubt Donaghy is lying.

[sabar]

Nah, why would someone with connections to organized crime lie?

[Obstructed_View]

I highly doubt Donaghy is lying.

And why shouldn't you doubt it, given his history of cheating and stealing?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I would prefer not believing any of this, but too many years of watching the NBA prevent me from dismissing his shit out of hand.

In 2006, does anyone remember game 2? how about dirk getting fouled on his way to the basket by Tim falling out of bounds to avoid contact?

The Iverson story is true too--and that's my honest to god gut reaction.

[Obstructed_View]

I would prefer not believing any of this, but too many years of watching the NBA prevent me from dismissing his shit out of hand.

In 2006, does anyone remember game 2? how about dirk getting fouled on his way to the basket by Tim falling out of bounds to avoid contact?

The Iverson story is true too--and that's my honest to god gut reaction.

Nene got his fifth foul last night going backwards to avoid contact, and got his sixth foul on a guy he wasn't anywhere near. Was that game fixed, too?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

I don't know, I didn't see it. Hey, I'm cool with you not believing what he says, but personally, I think there is far more truth in those experts then exaggeration.

[Obstructed_View]

I don't know, I didn't see it. Hey, I'm cool with you not believing what he says, but personally, I think there is far more truth in those experts then exaggeration.

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.

[Fabbs]

Used car salespersons dream come true ^^^^^

[Fabbs]

OJ was innocent. If you want the proof, I'll post it here.
500 Error a.k.a. Something Broke

[RobinsontoDuncan]

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.

I think that is certainly a rational way to understand the thinking in pulling the book, I would however suggest that there are other reasons for this reaction.

1. It is almost impossible to prove that his claims are true or false from the publishers perspective. These are first hand observations that will not be confirmed by any of the individuals he is commenting on.

2. Due to the damaging nature of the work in terms of its potential for hurting the business interests of the NBA, the publisher would have a more difficult time than normal defending against a libel case--even though all of the figures in question are likely to have Public Figure status.

3. Some of the referees may be able to prove that they aren't public figures, and as such, it is much easier for them to present a libel case.

[wildbill2u]

How about some old time observations on referees managing the games with bias?

In a playoff series with LA long ago--don't remember the year--we went out to LA and got jobbed in the first half. We got 24 fouls called on us to ONE for LA.

In our early years in the NBA we went to the conference finals with the Washington club and clearly had an edge. In the 6th game, I beleive it was, the refs called a phantom foul that cost us the game. Everyone knew it. In those days the refs (league???) weren't about to let one of the upstart ABA teams into the finals over an old NBA team. That bias was held against the ABA newcomers for years.

[duncan228]

Donaghy won't go away (http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/basketball/wires/v-fullstory/story/1308487.html)
By John McMullen, Sports Network

For nearly 30 years on the day before the Oscars, the Golden Raspberry Awards have celebrated the worst Hollywood has to offer.

There is the obvious stuff like Worst Picture, Worst Actor and Worst Actress, along with a series of unconventional categories like Worst Screen Couple and Worst Sequel.

Since sports is just another brand of entertainment, I am hoping "The Razzies" expand. In fact, I am waiting with bated breath for the Worst Official category.

Talk about some worthy candidates.

Baseball is loaded. You have "Mr. Confrontation" himself, "Cowboy" Joe West, the "highly-regarded" Tim McClelland and the latest World Series embarrassment Brian Gorman.

McClelland's my favorite, In the American League Championship Series. New York's Nick Swisher was at third base when Johnny Damon lofted a fly ball to Angels center fielder Torii Hunter. Swisher tagged up and easily scored. Or did he? Anaheim protested, saying Swisher left early and McClelland agreed, calling Swisher out.

Here's the funny part. Replays clearly showed Swisher never left early and revealed McClelland was never even looking at Swisher.

So why overturn it?

"In my heart I thought he left too soon," McClelland said. Then, when confronted with video, McClelland blurted out this gem: "After looking at replays, I'm not sure I believe the replay of the first one."

You can't make that stuff up.

Football isn't much better. The great Ed Hochuli is obsessed with getting camera time so he can give you tickets to his own personal "gun show." Meanwhile, NFL insiders talk about winning all "four phases" when Ron Winter is the top zebra -- offense, defense, special teams and his atrocious calls.

Of course, the real heavyweight nominee for the World's Worst Officiating Razzie has to be disgraced former NBA referee Tim Donaghy. After all, he is the only felon in the running...so far.

While serving time in a federal prison, Donaghy penned a book outlining the corruption in NBA officiating, something he certainly is an expert on.

His publisher, Random House, reportedly balked at releasing "Blowing the Whistle: The Culture of Fraud in the NBA," citing liability concerns.

However, Deadspin.com acquired excerpts of the book where Donaghy alleges things like officials "sometimes" give star players like Kobe Bryant favorable calls, some refs have it in for some players and coaches, and a home team is more likely to get a favorable whistle.

Wow...talk about groundbreaking stuff.

Steve Javie gives Kobe more rope than Willie Green, Joe Crawford hates Tim Duncan. Homecourt means something.

None of that could have possibly soured Random House so what gives?

Well, Donaghy also offered a far more explosive allegation involving veteran referee Dick Bavetta.

"Studying under Dick Bavetta for 13 years was like pursuing a graduate degree in advanced game manipulation," Donaghy wrote. "He knew how to marshal the tempo and tone of a game better than any referee in the league, by far. He also knew how to take subtle -- and not so subtle -- cues from the NBA front office and extend a playoff series or, worse yet, change the complexion of that series."

Donaghy cites the 2002 Western Conference Finals Game 6 between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings as an example of Bavetta's skills. Sacramento had a 3-2 edge in the series and the referees assigned to work were Bavetta, Bob Delaney, and Ted Bernhardt.

"As soon as the referees for the game were chosen, the rest of us knew immediately that there would be a Game 7," Donaghy wrote. "A prolonged series was good for the league, good for the networks, and good for the game. Oh, and one more thing: it was great for the big-market, star-studded Los Angeles Lakers."

Donaghy claimed in a pregame meeting prior to Game 6, the league office sent down word that calls that would have benefited the Lakers were being missed by the referees.

"This was the type of not-so-subtle information that I and other referees were left to interpret," Donaghy said. "After receiving the dispatch, Bavetta openly talked about the fact that the league wanted a Game 7."

"If we give the benefit of the calls to the team that's down in the series, nobody's going to complain," Bavetta stated, according to Donaghy. "The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win Game 7."

Of course, Sacramento went on to lose Game 6 as the Lakers were repeatedly sent to the foul line by Bavetta and company. Whispers about that game have been commonplace around the league for years.

For what's it's worth, I don't buy it.

I'm not naive. Scandal in sport has been around forever. Boxers will always take dives and tennis players will always tank matches, but you will never see a wide-ranging conspiracy in the four majors unless you're Oliver Stone. The media scrutiny is just too great.

If David Stern ordered Bavetta, Crawford, Javie or Delaney to fix games, why in the world was 2007-08 the first time since 1987 that the league's two "marquee franchises" faced off in the finals? Why are there so many playoff series with "marquee teams" that are lopsided?

Envelope please...The winner for World's Worst Official...

Take your pick...

Donaghy wins for Best Fiction Writer.

[BRHornet45]

Donaghy is telling the truth. it sucks for the sport, but anyone with a brain who has watched the playoffs especially over the last 10 years can see the blatant team/star favoritism from the NBA and the refs.

[duncan228]

Knick Bavetta (http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/buckharvey/2009/10/knick-bavetta.html)
By Buck Harvey

A reason not to believe Tim Donaghy is because he's a felon.

A reason to believe him is because he confirms what people have been thinking.

Such as the Spurs.

Deadspin.com printed excerpts from Donaghy's book, "Blowing the Whistle: The Culture of Fraud in the NBA." A division of Random House chose not to publish the book because of "concerns over potential liability."

A Random House spokesman denies the NBA threatened legal action. Still, the accusations are damaging to the league, such as this passage, according to Deadspin.com:

"Studying under Dick Bavetta for 13 years was like pursuing a graduate degree in advanced game manipulation. He knew how to marshal the tempo and tone of a game better than any referee in the league, by far. He also knew how to take subtle -- and not so subtle -- cues from the NBA front office and extend a playoff series or, worse yet, change the complexion of that series."

Donaghy went on to cite the infamous 2002 playoff series between the Lakers and Kings. But the Spurs had their own example, just three years earlier.

The Spurs had easily won the first two games of the 1999 NBA Finals in San Antonio with a defense that was the best in franchise history. Then came Game 3 when the phrase "extend a playoff series" applied. Bavetta was a member of the officiating team.

Even then, some Spurs officials wondered about the circumstances using the same words that Donaghy used. Was Bavetta there as the company man taking his cue from the league office?

That's why the Spurs rolled their eyes when the rules seemingly changed that night. Sean Elliott and Mario Elie were unable to touch Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell without a foul being called.

Was it coincidence that Bavetta was there? Had the Knicks simply responded as conference champions often do?

Or, after the lockout, with the Finals in the New York market, did the league not want to see a sweep?

The Knicks would never score more points against the Spurs in those Finals. That was also the only loss the Spurs suffered in any of their best-of-7-games series that season.

To be fair, no one got in the way when the Spurs swept the Cavaliers eight years later. There was even a moment, at the end of that Game 3, when Bruce Bowen appeared to be trying to intentionally foul LeBron James. There was no whistle.

Either way, Donaghy adds to both the paranoia and suspicion, even in successful NBA cites such as San Antonio. Another excerpt from Deadspin.com will further that:

"Two weeks before the 2003-04 season ended, Bavetta and I were assigned to officiate a game in Oakland. That afternoon before the tip-off, we were discussing an upcoming game on our schedule. It was the last regular-season game we were scheduled to work, pitting Denver against San Antonio. Denver had lost a game a few weeks prior because of a mistake made by the referees, a loss that could be the difference between them making or missing the playoffs. Bavetta told me Denver needed the win and that it would look bad for the staff and the league if the Nuggets missed the playoffs by one game. There were still a few games left on the schedule before the end of the season, and the standings could potentially change. But on that day in Oakland, Bavetta looked at me and casually stated, "Denver will win if they need the game. That's why I'm on it."

I was thinking, How is Denver going to win on the road in San Antonio? At the time, the Spurs were arguably the best team in the league. Bavetta answered my question before it was asked.

"Duncan will be on the bench with three fouls within the first five minutes of the game," he calmly stated.

As it turned out, Denver didn't need the win after all; they locked up a spot in the playoffs before they got to San Antonio. In a twist of fate, it was the Spurs that ended up needing the win to have a shot at the division title, and Bavetta generously accommodated. In our pregame meeting, he talked about how important the game was to San Antonio and how meaningless it was to Denver, and that San Antonio was going to get the benefit of the calls that night. Armed with this inside information, I called Jack Concannon before the game and told him to bet the Spurs.

To no surprise, we won big. San Antonio blew Denver out of the building that evening, winning by 26 points. When Jack called me the following morning, he expressed amazement at the way an NBA game could be manipulated. Sobering, yes; amazing, no. That's how the game is played in the National Basketball Association."

[Galileo]

Good find, duncan228.

If you REALLY want to learn more about this, I suggest that someone dig up the articles from the Sacremento Bee that came out a year or two ago. They focus on 'Game 6" from the 2002 series, LA vs Sacremento. They prove that the FBI did not do a real investigation and that Donaghy was made a scapegoat.

Who has the research skills to find these articles?

[DAF86]

The Spurs fans on this thread trying to convince themselves that everything that Donaghy said is a lie, would be all bitching about how corrupt the NBA is if he wouldn't have involved the Spurs on this. Don't let the fandom blind you, he may be exagerating some things to make the book more interesting but I have no doubt what he says is true. He gave a lot of names and involved a lot of people and nobody denied anything.

[Allanon]

Spurs fans don't have to look anywhere beyond the Spurs to see that Donaghy is full of it.

San Antonio is an even smaller TV market than the failed Vancouver Grizzlies, yet they own almost half of the NBA rings in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the #1 market team New York is wallowing in the lottery and #3 Boston was a joke for 20 years.

What kind of NBA rigging would let the Spurs win so many Championships while #1 & #3 have sucked A$$ for over a decade? Why would the NBA rig their golden child to get swept by the Spurs in 2007?

[DAF86]

Spurs fans don't have to look anywhere beyond the Spurs to see that Donaghy is full of it.

San Antonio is an even smaller TV market than the failed Vancouver Grizzlies, yet they own almost half of the NBA rings in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the #1 market team New York is wallowing in the lottery and #3 Boston was a joke for 20 years.

What kind of NBA rigging would let the Spurs win so many Championships while #1 & #3 have sucked A$$ for over a decade? Why would the NBA rig their golden child to get swept by the Spurs in 2007?

You rig only what you can rig, Stern can't make of Isaiah Thomas a good coach or of Stephon Marbury an intelligent person. He can, however, tell the refs to be a little bit more "aware" of the contact Kobe gets when he is attacking the rim.

[Allanon]

You rig only what you can rig, Stern can't make of Isaiah Thomas a good coach or of Stephon Marbury an intelligent person. He can, however, tell the refs to be a little bit more "aware" of the contact Kobe gets when he is attacking the rim.

I can buy that.

But how does that explain the tossing of Amare & Boris Diaw? The Suns were by far the more sexy team and in a much larger TV market than the Spurs. They could have "overlooked" that.

Why couldn't the refs be more "aware" of LeBron attacking the Rim in 2007 and allow him the humiliation of a sweep?

And both superstars Kobe and Shaq in the #2 TV market were swept by the Spurs in 99 led by Mr. Boredom himself, Tim Duncan.

This conspiracy theory just doesn't add up and it's all because of the Spurs.

In a rigged NBA, no way the "fun" Suns lose to the Spurs on a harmless stroll by Amare & Boris.
In a rigged NBA, no way King James gets swept out of the Finals in one of the most comatose inducing NBA Finals ever (only second to Pistons/Spurs).
Which reminds me, in a rigged NBA, no way do you have a coma inducing Spurs/Pistons Finals
In a rigged NBA no way do 2 super megastars get swept out of the Playoffs by a guy who looks like he'd rather be out watering his garden.

[DAF86]

I can buy that.

But how does that explain the tossing of Amare & Boris Diaw? The Suns were by far the more sexy team and in a much larger TV market than the Spurs. They could have "overlooked" that.

Stern was the prisoner of his own rule there. The rule says something to the effect of: "if a bench player gets into the court in brawl, he should get suspended" and that's what happened (and it was clear for everybody to see), he would have been too exposed if he wouldn't have suspended Amare and Diaw. But he tried to compensated anyway giving Horry a two game suspension for something that really didn't deserve even a one suspension game.


Why couldn't the refs be more "aware" of LeBron attacking the Rim in 2007 and allow him the humiliation of a sweep?

And both superstars Kobe and Shaq in the #2 TV market were swept by the Spurs in 99 led by Mr. Boredom himself, Tim Duncan.


When the differences are so big there's no rig that works.

[DAF86]

This conspiracy theory just doesn't add up and it's all because of the Spurs.

In a rigged NBA, no way the "fun" Suns lose to the Spurs on a harmless stroll by Amare & Boris.
In a rigged NBA, no way King James gets swept out of the Finals in one of the most comatose inducing NBA Finals ever (only second to Pistons/Spurs).
Which reminds me, in a rigged NBA, no way do you have a coma inducing Spurs/Pistons Finals
In a rigged NBA no way do 2 super megastars get swept out of the Playoffs by a guy who looks like he'd rather be out watering his garden.


You can't be "rigging" everything all the time, you need to let things be sometimes 'cause if you don't, it gets too suspicious.

[Allanon]

Stern was the prisoner of his own rule there. The rule says something to the effect of: "if a bench player gets into the court in brawl, he should get suspended" and that's what happened (and it was clear for everybody to see), he would have been too exposed if he wouldn't have suspended Amare and Diaw. But he tried to compensated anyway giving Horry a two game suspension for something that really didn't deserve even a one suspension game.

Stern's no prisoner, he makes and changes the rules himself. You are saying he's a corrupt man, if he was indeed corrupt, he would have said "We're going to make an exception." End of story.

The entire media was asking Stern to forgive them, he had a clear path to make the change. But he wasn't corrupt.



When the differences are so big there's no rig that works.

The differences weren't so large actually. The games were pretty close other than Game 4. The refs could have easily given games 1 and 2 to ShaqKobe and nobody would have noticed. Instead, they chose to give it to Tim Duncan and San Antonio, it really doesn't support the conspiracy theory.

[Allanon]

You can't be "rigging" everything all the time, you need to let things be sometimes 'cause if you don't, it gets too suspicious.

So when the Spurs win, the NBA isn't rigging. But when the Lakers, Celtics are winning, the NBA is rigging?

How many Spurs championships did David Stern rig?

Maybe instead of rigging, it's simply because the Spurs/Lakers/Celtics were better than the other team?

[DAF86]

So when the Spurs win, the NBA isn't rigging. But when the Lakers, Celtics are winning, the NBA is rigging?

Dude did you read Donaghy's comments about Nuñez?

[Allanon]

Dude did you read Donaghy's comments about Nuñez?

I think personal ref's interests and vendettas are definitely possible. Guys like Allen Iverson, Ron Artest, Sheed are all easy and preferred targets because of their attitude.

This is why the NBA rotates refs so 1 single ref can't determine the outcome of a series.

But on a league-wide NBA basis, no I don't think that large of a conspiracy can possibly exist.

[word]

Anything to deflect from Sterns Laker love.....

Long before the Spurs won their second title or I moved to SA and became a Spurs fan, people were bitching about the 'fix' for LA.

How soon we forget.

[Allanon]

You know, I give a free pass to fans of teams like the Suns/Mavs who have never won a championship. They have a justifiable reason to believe in these conspiracty theories against their teams.

But Spurfan, of all fans, should know better than to believe in these conspiracy theories.

By supporting these conspiracy theories you are either cheapening your 4 "rigged" Championships or believe that the Spurs are the only team to ever honestly win 4 championships.

Super-boring star Tim Duncan and the small market Spurs are the poster boys for what Stern DOESN'T want to be in the Finals. Stern probably had nightmares and shivers at night in 99, 2003, 2005, 2007.

:lol

[temujin]

Spurs fans don't have to look anywhere beyond the Spurs to see that Donaghy is full of it.

San Antonio is an even smaller TV market than the failed Vancouver Grizzlies, yet they own almost half of the NBA rings in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the #1 market team New York is wallowing in the lottery and #3 Boston was a joke for 20 years.

What kind of NBA rigging would let the Spurs win so many Championships while #1 & #3 have sucked A$$ for over a decade? Why would the NBA rig their golden child to get swept by the Spurs in 2007?

If you are a young military out of the academy and you spend 5 years behind the Steel Curtain in the 70s, will ill-defined duties, what kind of job are you holding EXACTLY?
Are you making friends, during that period, that could potentially help you later in your career, whatever that might be?
Maybe.
Do some of these friends happen to know that some of the NBA refs are less than adamant in their personal lives?
Maybe.
Can these infos be put to use in deciding some of the games? Key games, possibly?
Maybe.

Should the Spurs fans be wining about NBA being rigged (as it obviously is).
NO.

[DAF86]

Should the Spurs fans be wining about NBA being rigged (as it obviously is).
NO.

Why not? I'm a Spurs fan and I don't like the NBA to be rigged, even if it helps my team, I don't like it.

[Obstructed_View]

I think that is certainly a rational way to understand the thinking in pulling the book, I would however suggest that there are other reasons for this reaction.

1. It is almost impossible to prove that his claims are true or false from the publishers perspective. These are first hand observations that will not be confirmed by any of the individuals he is commenting on.

2. Due to the damaging nature of the work in terms of its potential for hurting the business interests of the NBA, the publisher would have a more difficult time than normal defending against a libel case--even though all of the figures in question are likely to have Public Figure status.

3. Some of the referees may be able to prove that they aren't public figures, and as such, it is much easier for them to present a libel case.

Only part of the excerpts are first hand observations. Many of them are second hand observations which amount to hearsay. The guy authoring the book can't personally testify to the truthfulness of what he's writing, and his character is in question anyway.

[diego]

it doesnt have to be some organized, centralized conspiracy for refs to manipulate games. All it takes is a little incompetence, a little unprofessionalism and you can get big mistakes, nevermind the small ones that are absolutely inevitable. Add to that the possibility for interests and biases, a la donaghy... Some people are suggesting its impossible for games to be manipulated when tim donaghy is in jail precisely because he manipulated games. Is donaghy being wrongly imprisoned? Why didnt the NBA defend him? Donaghy's sheer existence is proof positive that manipulation happens and that the NBA doesnt do a good job monitoring its refs performances.

stern isnt rigging games in some underground control room from a bond film. but when he continues to employ an incompetent fool like stu jackson, he is paving the way for continued mistakes. when you practically have no pipeline of new refs recieving training (see offseason ref debacle), you are not doing a good job to ensure quality officiating. 90% of this problem is simple incompetence and lack of professionalism, and stern has to take some of the heat for not creating a structure that fosters accountability and transparency.

[wildbill2u]

If this guy goes to self-publishing and sells from an offshore location where his money can be protected by bank privacy laws, I think he can make a lot of money because he can use the relatively new process known as 'print on demand", meaning he has no inventory but just sells by mail and prints up books when he has money in hand.

Since any legal action against him that would end up with a judgement is going to be a civil libel suit--not a criminal case---the Feds aren't going to go after his money in the Bahamas or Switzerlland.

[wildbill2u]

Spurs fans don't have to look anywhere beyond the Spurs to see that Donaghy is full of it.

San Antonio is an even smaller TV market than the failed Vancouver Grizzlies, yet they own almost half of the NBA rings in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the #1 market team New York is wallowing in the lottery and #3 Boston was a joke for 20 years.

What kind of NBA rigging would let the Spurs win so many Championships while #1 & #3 have sucked A$$ for over a decade? Why would the NBA rig their golden child to get swept by the Spurs in 2007?

You obviously weren't around for the turbulent days during and after the ABA/NBA war. There were bad feelings on the part of the NBA against the ABA because we broke into their little club.

Check out the series between SA and Washington a year or so after the merger and say there was no manipulation by the refs. Everyone knew the refs were not going to let an upstart from the NBA win.

And not one ABA team came closer than that until the Nineties. I believe there was a bias against the ABA teams. It was a frequent subject of newspaper articles back in the day. And the most frequent target of the criticisms was Dick Brevetta.

[Biggems]

Suns lost fair and square.

The End. Put it to rest, plz.

well if the book is true and the refs went anti-suns cause of Sarver.....maybe he should start wining and dining the refs....send their wives gift baskets for christmas....send them on cruises....all anonymously of course.

[duncan228]

Can’t buy his latest call (http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/articles/2009/10/31/cant_buy_donaghys_latest_call/?page=full)
By Dan Shaughnessy
Globe Columnist

Tim Donaghy is back in the news. Serving time in federal prison, the former NBA official is once again trying to take down the NBA and its corps of referees.

The dirty zebra has written a book - which may or may not be published - and he’s again claiming that the games are not on the level. He’s naming names, and some of the stuff found its way to the Internet. The NBA has delivered Donaghy’s latest allegations to a former federal prosecutor who reviewed league officiating when Donaghy’s crimes first came to light.

There is probably some truth in Donaghy’s new charges. The ref rat claims stars get special treatment - not exactly a “stop the presses’’ bulletin.

It’s not hard to imagine refs playing parlor games regarding who might make the first call of the night. Maybe a guy did T-up Rasheed Wallace in order to make his fellow refs responsible for tipping the ball boys. Some refs don’t like some players. It’s only human.

But fixing games and gambling on games is another matter. Making sure a series goes seven games is corrupt. Helping the Celtics and Lakers at the expense of the Cavaliers and Spurs is consumer fraud. It’s criminal.

And I’m not buying it.

Donaghy is a crook and a rat. He’s also broke and back in prison. And he’s trying to make a buck. His claims got some traction yesterday on the local talk shows. The unsubstantiated charges make great Internet fodder. And I am writing about it because, well, people are talking about it.

But I simply refuse to believe that the games we watch are not on the level.

Call me naive. It won’t be the first time. Certainly those of us who bought into the Sosa-McGwire home run chase of 1998 were snookered. I never thought Pete Rose would have bet on baseball while he was managing the Reds. If I’d covered the 1919 World Series, I’d have probably written at great length about the White Sox choking and underperforming.

But tanking?

Say it ain’t so.

I went to the Garden last night to watch the Celtics and the Bulls. I kept my eyes on Tom Washington, Eric Lewis, and Zach Zarba. I saw nothing suspicious. There are going to be bad calls, suspect calls. I just don’t think the refs are in the bag.

I talked with players, coaches, and ex-players, and naturally no one was buying into Donaghy’s premise. Not on the record, anyway. NBA players are not fools and only a fool would slander the men who make the calls that impact their livelihood.

“I just have faith that everybody is doing what they are supposed to do,’’ said Ray Allen. “The refs are not always perfect. There are a lot of judgment calls. That’s why we, as players, need to have good relationships with them. We try not to let the game get to a point where it’s in the referees’ hands.’’

I asked Allen if he ever felt an official “had it in for you?’’

“Yes,’’ he said quickly. “For sure. Sometimes we may be paranoid, you might think a guy doesn’t like you.’’

Danny Ainge had the same reaction to the question.

“I felt Earl Strom had it in for me when I played,’’ said Ainge. “One time I went up to him and asked him how much longer I was going to have to pay for something I’d done and he looked at me like he didn’t know what I was talking about.’’

We don’t need Donaghy going all Canseco on us to know that stuff happens. In 2007, veteran official Joe Crawford was suspended by the NBA after ejecting Tim Duncan. It was not the first time Crawford was slapped by his bosses. Back in the 1980s, Celtics coach Bill Fitch was under the impression that Crawford had been punished for making too many calls against a team that failed to provide him with tickets for a game. Any time thereafter, when Fitch felt Crawford was foiling the Celtics at the Garden, Fitch would say, “What’s the matter, Joe? Didn’t you get your tickets tonight?’’

None of it is OK. Anything less than total impartiality is unacceptable, and all leagues need to be vigilant.

But game-fixing? Series-fixing? I don’t think so. Too many people would have to be in on it. It would get out.

Bettors and fans who love teams more than their own families inevitably see demons. But I’ve never understood how any fan could make an emotional (or financial) investment in games that are fixed.

You can’t go to the Garden and write a story about officials without checking with Tommy Heinsohn. Part of the NBA since 1956, Tommy has said more about referees than anyone in Greater Boston. He’s battled the whistles from the court, the bench, and the broadcast booth. Did he ever think the games were fixed?

“No,’’ said Heinsohn. “Sometimes it’s subjective. You wonder what a guy thinks of you if he says you’re nothing but a showboat. But I never believed it wasn’t on the level.’’

“I’m not going to believe what a criminal says,’’ said Doc Rivers. “No doubt, there are times we are not happy. It’s a human game, just like those baseball games with the umpires last night. There’s always going to be stuff like that.’’

“I read the excerpts [from Donaghy’s book],’’ said Ainge. “You have to consider the source. It’s easy to write and say things and blow it out of proportion. I just played in too many big games to believe all that. I believe they’re doing the best they can and that the players decide the outcome.’’

Players decide the outcome. If you don’t believe that, why bother watching the games?

[antimvp]

I told everyone the NBA was rigged.

vindicated.

[antimvp]

Can’t buy his latest call (http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/articles/2009/10/31/cant_buy_donaghys_latest_call/?page=full)
By Dan Shaughnessy
Globe Columnist

Tim Donaghy is back in the news. Serving time in federal prison, the former NBA official is once again trying to take down the NBA and its corps of referees.

The dirty zebra has written a book - which may or may not be published - and he’s again claiming that the games are not on the level. He’s naming names, and some of the stuff found its way to the Internet. The NBA has delivered Donaghy’s latest allegations to a former federal prosecutor who reviewed league officiating when Donaghy’s crimes first came to light.

There is probably some truth in Donaghy’s new charges. The ref rat claims stars get special treatment - not exactly a “stop the presses’’ bulletin.

It’s not hard to imagine refs playing parlor games regarding who might make the first call of the night. Maybe a guy did T-up Rasheed Wallace in order to make his fellow refs responsible for tipping the ball boys. Some refs don’t like some players. It’s only human.

But fixing games and gambling on games is another matter. Making sure a series goes seven games is corrupt. Helping the Celtics and Lakers at the expense of the Cavaliers and Spurs is consumer fraud. It’s criminal.

And I’m not buying it.

Donaghy is a crook and a rat. He’s also broke and back in prison. And he’s trying to make a buck. His claims got some traction yesterday on the local talk shows. The unsubstantiated charges make great Internet fodder. And I am writing about it because, well, people are talking about it.

But I simply refuse to believe that the games we watch are not on the level.

Call me naive. It won’t be the first time. Certainly those of us who bought into the Sosa-McGwire home run chase of 1998 were snookered. I never thought Pete Rose would have bet on baseball while he was managing the Reds. If I’d covered the 1919 World Series, I’d have probably written at great length about the White Sox choking and underperforming.

But tanking?

Say it ain’t so.

I went to the Garden last night to watch the Celtics and the Bulls. I kept my eyes on Tom Washington, Eric Lewis, and Zach Zarba. I saw nothing suspicious. There are going to be bad calls, suspect calls. I just don’t think the refs are in the bag.

I talked with players, coaches, and ex-players, and naturally no one was buying into Donaghy’s premise. Not on the record, anyway. NBA players are not fools and only a fool would slander the men who make the calls that impact their livelihood.

“I just have faith that everybody is doing what they are supposed to do,’’ said Ray Allen. “The refs are not always perfect. There are a lot of judgment calls. That’s why we, as players, need to have good relationships with them. We try not to let the game get to a point where it’s in the referees’ hands.’’

I asked Allen if he ever felt an official “had it in for you?’’

“Yes,’’ he said quickly. “For sure. Sometimes we may be paranoid, you might think a guy doesn’t like you.’’

Danny Ainge had the same reaction to the question.

“I felt Earl Strom had it in for me when I played,’’ said Ainge. “One time I went up to him and asked him how much longer I was going to have to pay for something I’d done and he looked at me like he didn’t know what I was talking about.’’

We don’t need Donaghy going all Canseco on us to know that stuff happens. In 2007, veteran official Joe Crawford was suspended by the NBA after ejecting Tim Duncan. It was not the first time Crawford was slapped by his bosses. Back in the 1980s, Celtics coach Bill Fitch was under the impression that Crawford had been punished for making too many calls against a team that failed to provide him with tickets for a game. Any time thereafter, when Fitch felt Crawford was foiling the Celtics at the Garden, Fitch would say, “What’s the matter, Joe? Didn’t you get your tickets tonight?’’

None of it is OK. Anything less than total impartiality is unacceptable, and all leagues need to be vigilant.

But game-fixing? Series-fixing? I don’t think so. Too many people would have to be in on it. It would get out.

Bettors and fans who love teams more than their own families inevitably see demons. But I’ve never understood how any fan could make an emotional (or financial) investment in games that are fixed.

You can’t go to the Garden and write a story about officials without checking with Tommy Heinsohn. Part of the NBA since 1956, Tommy has said more about referees than anyone in Greater Boston. He’s battled the whistles from the court, the bench, and the broadcast booth. Did he ever think the games were fixed?

“No,’’ said Heinsohn. “Sometimes it’s subjective. You wonder what a guy thinks of you if he says you’re nothing but a showboat. But I never believed it wasn’t on the level.’’

“I’m not going to believe what a criminal says,’’ said Doc Rivers. “No doubt, there are times we are not happy. It’s a human game, just like those baseball games with the umpires last night. There’s always going to be stuff like that.’’

“I read the excerpts [from Donaghy’s book],’’ said Ainge. “You have to consider the source. It’s easy to write and say things and blow it out of proportion. I just played in too many big games to believe all that. I believe they’re doing the best they can and that the players decide the outcome.’’

Players decide the outcome. If you don’t believe that, why bother watching the games?


It always comes down to "why watch then"

with no real answers, like saying their is a trinity because there is,

again with no real proof.


this dude just doesn't want to believe he has been duped for so many years.:lmao

[Galileo]

But Spurfan, of all fans, should know better than to believe in these conspiracy theories.

By supporting these conspiracy theories you are either cheapening your 4 "rigged" Championships or believe that the Spurs are the only team to ever honestly win 4 championships.

Super-boring star Tim Duncan and the small market Spurs are the poster boys for what Stern DOESN'T want to be in the Finals. Stern probably had nightmares and shivers at night in 99, 2003, 2005, 2007.

:lol

What a GREAT cover story. Every good conspiracy needs plausible denial.

[EricB]

Why post on a basketball website then?

[Galileo]

It always comes down to "why watch then"



What could be more exciting than watching Tim Duncan and the Spurs overcome a massive conspiracy? Nothing is better than when the good guys win.

:rollin

[Galileo]

Only part of the excerpts are first hand observations. Many of them are second hand observations which amount to hearsay. The guy authoring the book can't personally testify to the truthfulness of what he's writing, and his character is in question anyway.

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

Donaghy provided credible information to fix games, and now he is providing credible info about how the games were fixed. Nothing he has ever said has been shown to be false, and it all rings true.

Gambling laws are unconstitutional, anyway, Donaghy is fighting for our liberty.

PS - Stern is the person whose character is in question. He is just lying to make money, pure and simple. Stern does not provide specifics, Donaghy does. A common trait of liars is to provide only vague information.

[FromWayDowntown]

One thing that I don't get about the conspiracy theory notion is that there are plenty of people who've been in the NBA's employ as officials and have been fired from those jobs or resigned on questionable terms.

Dee Kantner and Michael Henderson immediately come to mind -- and each left the league on terms that were relatively humiliating.

Ted Bernhardt is an even better example to me, given that he was among the league's very best officials -- he had to have been an elite official to work Game 6 of a conference finals and the ensuring NBA Finals. He left the league at the height of his career, not long after being vilified for making a foul call in an All-Star game that cost Michael Jordan a game-winner. If anyone is likely to have an axe to grind with the NBA, it's Bernhardt.

Less well-known examples exist, too, since the league essentially fires officials almost annually.

Yet, beyond Donaghy, none of those people -- all of whom would be in a position to corroborate Donaghy's claims to some extent -- have sided with him. And none has any obvious reason to support the NBA's position any longer.

Donaghy's credibility is questionable, and his anecdotes are hearsay-fraught recounts of frequently-cited examples, leaving me to doubt his claims. But the lack of corroboration from people who could readily-support those claims leads me to disbelieve much of what Donaghy says.

[FromWayDowntown]

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

Because Donaghy managed to hide the truth about his impact on games for years, for one thing.


Gambling laws are unconstitutional, anyway,

Why is that? [this should be interesting]

[Mel_13]

Why is his character in question?

He pleaded guilty to federal crimes. Isn't that enough?

[Galileo]

Because Donaghy managed to hide the truth about his impact on games for years, for one thing.



He kept to truth to those on a need to know basis. Besides that, nobody else asked him.


Why is that? [this should be interesting]

People have a naural right of pursuit of happiness. That includes gambling.

:lol

[Galileo]

He pleaded guilty to federal crimes. Isn't that enough?

No. I wouldn't believe anything the federal govenment said, especially the justice department. The federal govenrment lies about almost everything. We have become a police state.

Donaghy was Stern's scapegoat.

[Mel_13]

no. I wouldn't believe anything the federal govenment said, especially the justice department. The federal govenrment lies about almost everything. We have become a police state.

Donaghy was stern's scapegoat.

ok

[FromWayDowntown]

He kept to truth to those on a need to know basis. Besides that, nobody else asked him.

So if you deceive your employer and your customers (and they don't ask you about it for a while) but you tell your wife, you're not a liar?


People have a naural right of pursuit of happiness. That includes gambling.

:lol

States have a constitutional power to exercise a police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.

[Galileo]

So if you deceive your employer and your customers (and they don't ask you about it for a while) but you tell your wife, you're not a liar?



Stern was already fixing games for money, like game 6 of the 2002 WCF. Why should Donaghy not be able to get some?

[FromWayDowntown]

Stern was already fixing games for money, like game 6 of the 2002 WCF. Why should Donaghy not be able to get some?

Even if you were right about Stern, what you say about Donaghy is a justification for lying -- it doesn't suggest that he wasn't lying.

And people who lie are not credible.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Suns lost fair and square.

The End. Put it to rest, plz.

[Galileo]

Even if you were right about Stern, what you say about Donaghy is a justification for lying -- it doesn't suggest that he wasn't lying.

And people who lie are not credible.

He wasn't lying. When he was fixing games, nobody asked him, so there was nothing to lie about. After he got caught, he admitted it right away, and offered to cooperate.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

These excerpts have "what can make the most money" written all over them.

I think some of it might be credible, but this Nunez ref lives in Phoenix. Donaghy should have done his HW before coming up with that.

[Galileo]

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.

[FromWayDowntown]

He wasn't lying. When he was fixing games, nobody asked him, so there was nothing to lie about. After he got caught, he admitted it right away, and offered to cooperate.

So, again, if you deceive your employer and customers, but nobody asks you about it, are you lying?

[Galileo]

So, again, if you deceive your employer and customers, but nobody asks you about it, are you lying?

No, you're not.

[FromWayDowntown]

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.

Bernhardt has come forward -- he came forward when Donaghy first alleged that Game 6 was rigged -- and he explicitly denied all of Donaghy's allegations.

I suppose you'll now say that Bernhardt isn't actually honest.

[FromWayDowntown]

Retired NBA ref refutes Donaghy allegations from '02 playoffs

One of three referees to officiate Game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings series recalls it much the same as everyone else -- except Tim Donaghy.

Ted Bernhardt, who along with Dick Bavetta and Bob Delaney officiated the game, again denied Donaghy's latest allegations in an interview with The Sacramento Bee. He had told ESPN.com last week that he stood by his calls in the controversial game. Bernhardt acknowledged it wasn't one of his best performances, but he refuted Donaghy's assertions that refs had rigged the game in order to stretch the series to a Game 7.

"After the game, I wasn't happy, not with a particular call, but it just wasn't a good game for us," Bernhardt, who retired during the 2005-06 season, told the Bee. "I know this is a horrible thing. But we tried hard to get the calls right. I don't understand. ... I don't know what's behind [the Donaghy] situation, but I have never been around a referee I thought cheated or was influenced in a game.

"I never imagined we'd be talking about this six years later."

Delaney, who is still an active referee, also has denied Donaghy's allegations in an interview with ESPN's "Outside The Lines" last week.

Delaney, a highly decorated former New Jersey State trooper, said: "This is not the first time a known or convicted criminal has lied about me before the judicial system. I have an extensive law enforcement background and still train police officers. I have dealt with criminals and informants, and I know full well they are capable of doing and saying anything. I cannot comment any further without permission from the NBA."

According to a letter filed in court last week, two referees, known as "company men," purposely ignored personal fouls and called "made-up fouls on Team 5 in order to give additional free throw opportunities for Team 6" in a 2002 playoff series.

"I stand by my calls in that game," Bernhardt told ESPN.com Thursday. "I was right on."

Although no teams are specifically named, it is not hard to deduce the game in question. The Lakers-Kings series was the only one that postseason that went seven games, and the officiating in Game 6 was so questionable that consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader called for a formal investigation.

"Everything just blew up," Bernhardt told the Bee. "It's a shame. You have an off-night as an official. Well, players have off-nights, too. For someone to say that we wanted the series to go to seven games ... it's really hard for me to hear all this stuff. This hurts me on so many levels."

* * * *

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3444557

[Galileo]

Bernhardt has come forward -- he came forward when Donaghy first alleged that Game 6 was rigged -- and he explicitly denied all of Donaghy's allegations.

I suppose you'll now say that Bernhardt isn't actually honest.

That's not what I remember reading. Maybe someone can find a link.

Bernhardt knows what happened in game 6.

[Galileo]

Retired NBA ref refutes Donaghy allegations from '02 playoffs

One of three referees to officiate Game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings series recalls it much the same as everyone else -- except Tim Donaghy.

Ted Bernhardt, who along with Dick Bavetta and Bob Delaney officiated the game, again denied Donaghy's latest allegations in an interview with The Sacramento Bee. He had told ESPN.com last week that he stood by his calls in the controversial game. Bernhardt acknowledged it wasn't one of his best performances, but he refuted Donaghy's assertions that refs had rigged the game in order to stretch the series to a Game 7.

"After the game, I wasn't happy, not with a particular call, but it just wasn't a good game for us," Bernhardt, who retired during the 2005-06 season, told the Bee. "I know this is a horrible thing. But we tried hard to get the calls right. I don't understand. ... I don't know what's behind [the Donaghy] situation, but I have never been around a referee I thought cheated or was influenced in a game.

"I never imagined we'd be talking about this six years later."

Delaney, who is still an active referee, also has denied Donaghy's allegations in an interview with ESPN's "Outside The Lines" last week.

Delaney, a highly decorated former New Jersey State trooper, said: "This is not the first time a known or convicted criminal has lied about me before the judicial system. I have an extensive law enforcement background and still train police officers. I have dealt with criminals and informants, and I know full well they are capable of doing and saying anything. I cannot comment any further without permission from the NBA."

According to a letter filed in court last week, two referees, known as "company men," purposely ignored personal fouls and called "made-up fouls on Team 5 in order to give additional free throw opportunities for Team 6" in a 2002 playoff series.

"I stand by my calls in that game," Bernhardt told ESPN.com Thursday. "I was right on."

Although no teams are specifically named, it is not hard to deduce the game in question. The Lakers-Kings series was the only one that postseason that went seven games, and the officiating in Game 6 was so questionable that consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader called for a formal investigation.

"Everything just blew up," Bernhardt told the Bee. "It's a shame. You have an off-night as an official. Well, players have off-nights, too. For someone to say that we wanted the series to go to seven games ... it's really hard for me to hear all this stuff. This hurts me on so many levels."

* * * *

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3444557

Delaney is a former undercover FBI agent, and a professional liar. Professional liars should never be believed. Usually, its best to believe the opposite of what they say.

Bernhardt is under pressure. His denial isn't really a denial, compare what he says to the game film, like when Kobe took Bibby's head off.

Also, compare what Bernhardt said, to what he said 2 years ago.

Delaney is a straight up liar. As an FBI agent, he knows that cases are made all the time with convicted criminals, criminals much worse than Donaghy.

Given that Delaney knows this, his statements here amount to a boldfaced lie.

[tp2021]

Professional liars shouldn't be believed, but amateur liars in a different profession should be. Are their lies more truthful then?

[FromWayDowntown]

The Pedowitz Report is out: Bad day for conspiracy theorists

* * * *

*After the Bee's Ailene Voisin quoted Bernhardt in June as saying it was a bad game for the three-man crew but that nothing unethical had happened, "Donaghy called him and
said he was disturbed by Bernhardt's press comments," the report stated. "Bernhardt said that Donaghy then proceeded to try to lead him and put words in his mouth. He said that Donaghy was incredibly persistent and sounded like a conspiracy theorist. Bernhardt told us that Donaghy was pushing him to agree that Dick Bavetta had said Bavetta was happy to have the series go to a seventh game. Bernhardt said he told Donaghy, I'd like to help you if I could, but that's not the way it happened.'

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/sports/kings/archives/015814.html

[Galileo]

Bernhardt did not have and "off night". Delaney and Bavetta did.

Can we get the stats on fouls called by refs for the game?

[FromWayDowntown]

Also, compare what Bernhardt said, to what he said 2 years ago.

What did Bernhardt say 2 years ago? Post it.


Delaney is a straight up liar. As an FBI agent, he knows that cases are made all the time with convicted criminals, criminals much worse than Donaghy.

Given that Delaney knows this, his statements here amount to a boldfaced lie.

Nice effort to change the focus of the discussion. But you said that Bernhardt should be consulted because Bernhardt "is honest;" upon consulting Bernhardt, we have someone who "is honest" who unequivocally denies Donaghy's allegations.

So, either Bernhardt didn't mean what he said (and is therefore dishonest -- requiring you to suddenly change your view of him) or Bernhardt meant exactly what he said and corroborates Delaney and not Donaghy.

Interesting spot for you to be in right now, Galileo. Do you really back off your reliance on Bernhardt?

[FromWayDowntown]

Bernhardt did not have and "off night". Delaney and Bavetta did.

Can we get the stats on fouls called by refs for the game?

*An NBA review found 15 incorrect calls or non-calls those fateful hours at Staples Center, eight favoring the Lakers and seven favoring the Kings. In the fourth quarter, the most controversial time of all, the league determined that two favored the Lakers and one favored the Kings.

*Bavetta had nine mistakes in the game, five favoring the Lakers, and none in the fourth quarter. Bernhardt had six errors, four favoring the Lakers, and one in the fourth that favored the Lakers. Delaney had four misses, two for each team, and three in the fourth. Two of those favored the Lakers, including the most heated decision of all: Kobe Bryant not being called for the forearm to Mike Bibby's face.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/sports/kings/archives/015814.html

Looks like Bobby Covert (Delaney) had a better night than Bernhardt did.

[Galileo]

What did Bernhardt say 2 years ago? Post it.



Nice effort to change the focus of the discussion. But you said that Bernhardt should be consulted because Bernhardt "is honest;" upon consulting Bernhardt, we have someone who "is honest" who unequivocally denies Donaghy's allegations.

So, either Bernhardt didn't mean what he said (and is therefore dishonest -- requiring you to suddenly change your view of him) or Bernhardt meant exactly what he said and corroborates Delaney and not Donaghy.

Interesting spot for you to be in right now, Galileo. Do you really back off your reliance on Bernhardt?

No, I believe Bernhardt is honest and under pressure.

[FromWayDowntown]

No, I believe Bernhardt is honest and under pressure.

So he's honest, but he's not telling the truth?

[tp2021]

Is he honestly lying, or lying honestly?

[Allanon]

You obviously weren't around for the turbulent days during and after the ABA/NBA war. There were bad feelings on the part of the NBA against the ABA because we broke into their little club.

Check out the series between SA and Washington a year or so after the merger and say there was no manipulation by the refs. Everyone knew the refs were not going to let an upstart from the NBA win.

And not one ABA team came closer than that until the Nineties. I believe there was a bias against the ABA teams. It was a frequent subject of newspaper articles back in the day. And the most frequent target of the criticisms was Dick Brevetta.

You are correct, I wasn't around for the ABA/NBA days. Heck I wasn't even around for Magic/Bird.

But I'm speaking of today's NBA. And today the very small market Spurs have almost half the rings of the last 10 years. That pains Stern, he even went on to say if he had his choice, it would be "Lakers vs Lakers". If he was corrupt, no way he lets Amare and Boris get suspended. No way we would have watched that snoozer called the Pistons vs Spurs Finals.

But Stern has no choice in these matters, because the NBA is not rigged. If it were, the Celtics wouldn't have been a Joke for 20 years. The Knicks wouldn't be the joke they are now. 7 out of the 10 largest markets haven't won a championship in 15 years.

If there were some league-wide conspiracy over the last 10 years, it would be the NBA trying to give the audience the most boring small market teams the championship. And that doesn't make any business sense.

[bigzak25]

it's like this, i mean, if you want to believe in the integrity of the game, that's fine...who can blame you. i want to believe in it too.

and i don't know any more than anyone else...

but when you have that feeling...it's usually gamblers that notice it...and i'm no gambler, but i dabble...

you see the surest thing in the world, safest bet in the world...and you laugh to yourself because you know...you just know that it's a suckers bet.

and 9 times out of 10...yup...the 'impossible' happened!

the team that looked like dog crap yesterday played like champs today! wow!

the team that played like they were unbeatable yesterday laid an egg today...big surprise!

the fix is in vs the spread...nba...nfl...marque teams...nationally televised especially...you know, games where the action is...

it is just too damn easy to put a star player in foul trouble...or in the nfl to call holding after a td that needs to be erased...

this is the tip of the iceberg...

we as fans...we're powerless...we just have to hope it doesn't affect the final outcomes of a 7 game series in may/june...you have to hope that there is some code of honor among dishonor...and that the best teams are allowed to raise the trophies at the end of the day...


all that said, Go Spurs Go...because I believe they have the talent and the system to be the best team...once Pop decides to stop doing whatever he's doing...for whatever reason he's doing it...that leads to his decisions to keep blair and mcdyess on their butts watching small ball on the court...no explanation right...well...there is one possibility...

[Galileo]

B. Los Angeles Lakers vs. Sacramento Kings (Game 6 ― May 31, 2002)

Donaghy also claims to have provided the government with “information relating
to manipulation occurring in 2002.” According to Donaghy:

Referees A, F, and G were officiating a playoff series between
Team 5 and Team 6 in May of 2002. It was the sixth game of a
seven-game series, and a Team 5 victory that night would have
ended the series. However, Tim learned from Referee A that
Referees A and F wanted to extend the series to seven games. Tim
knew Referees A and F to be “company men,” always acting in the
interest of the NBA, and that night, it was in the NBA’s interest to
add another game to the series.

Referees A and F heavily favored Team 6. Personal fouls
(resulting in obviously injured players) were ignored even when
they occurred in full view of the referees. Conversely, the referees
called made-up fouls on Team 5 in order to give additional free
throw opportunities for Team 6. Their foul-calling also led to the
ejection of two Team 5 players. The referees’ favoring of Team 6
led to that team’s victory that night and Team 6 came back from
behind to win the series.

Donaghy’s description of the game clearly refers to Game 6 of the 2002 Western
Conference Finals between the Sacramento Kings (“Team 5”) and the Los Angeles Lakers
(“Team 6”), which was played in Los Angeles on May 31, 2002. The Lakers won Game 6 by a
score of 106-102 to tie the series at three games apiece. (On June 2, 2002, the Lakers won Game
7 by a score of 112-106 to win the series four games to three.)

The referees officiating Game 6 were Dick Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob
Delaney (“Referees A, F and G,” although it is not clear which letter Donaghy assigned to each
referee). A number of referees who knew Donaghy well when he was officiating with the NBA
have told us that they believe Donaghy’s reference to two referees as “company men” is to
Bavetta and Delaney, who were veteran referees who had been selected by NBA management as

-73-

playoff referees for a number of years and who had cordial relationships with certain members of
referee management. A phone call that Donaghy made this summer to Ted Bernhardt ― which
we discuss further herein ― confirmed for us that Donaghy’s accusation is focused on Bavetta
and Delaney. The two Sacramento Kings players who were disqualified for accruing six fouls
each ― they were not “eject[ed]” ― were Vlade Divac and Scott Pollard.

Game 6 featured a significant disparity in fouls called in the fourth quarter: the
Sacramento Kings were called for sixteen fouls, while the Lakers were called for eight fouls.

Three foul calls against Sacramento, however, were the result of intentional “take” fouls
committed by Sacramento to stop the clock and regain possession of the ball. Removing these
fouls from the tally yields a foul differential of thirteen to eight.

Two plays in the fourth quarter, both of which favored the Lakers, were
particularly controversial. First, with two minutes and fifty-six seconds left in the game and the
Kings leading 92-90, Vlade Divac of the Kings was erroneously called for a loose-ball foul, for
which two free throws were awarded to the Lakers’ Robert Horry. The foul was Divac’s sixth of
the game, resulting in his disqualification. Second, with 12.6 seconds left in the game and the
Lakers leading 103-102, the Lakers’ Kobe Bryant struck the Kings’ Michael Bibby in the face
with his forearm but was not called for a foul.

The officiating in Game 6 generated a substantial amount of critical commentary
in the media and elsewhere,51 and Ralph Nader wrote a letter to Commissioner Stern calling for a
review of the game and changes to the League’s policies concerning criticism of officiating.52

51 See, e.g., Jay Mariotti, In Theory, Lakers a Shoo-In, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, June 2, 2002,
at 114 (free throw disparity “push[ed] the Lakers to a frenetic Game 6 victory, preserving a
delicious slice of prime-time programming” for Game 7); Michael Wilbon, Talk About Foul!
Game 6 Was a Real Stinker, WASH. POST, June 2, 2002, at D1 (noting that although he had

-74-

We examined Donaghy’s allegations about Game 6 by interviewing the game’s
referees and other League employees. We also asked the NBA to have the video of Game 6
reviewed by its officiating experts to determine whether the referees made correct or incorrect
calls or non-calls on each play in light of specific allegations that two of the referees may have
manipulated the game outcome and to see if they saw any conduct suggesting manipulation.

This review of how the referees performed seems to us to present a more meaningful measure of
the referees’ conduct than simple disparities in fouls called, which may simply reflect different
playing styles between the teams or game situations.

The game was, in the opinion of the reviewers, poorly officiated. There were a
total of fifteen incorrect calls or non-calls. Of these fifteen errors, eight favored the Lakers,
while seven favored the Kings. The bulk of the game’s incorrect calls and non-calls occurred
during the first three quarters. In the critical fourth quarter, there were only three incorrect calls
or non-calls: two favored the Lakers and one favored the Kings. The officiating errors were
found to be distributed among the three referees as follows:

“never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6,” he had “zero
tolerance for ‘conspiracy’ stories, that the NBA and NBC conspire to influence if not straight-up
arrange the outcome”; attributing the controversial calls and free throw disparity to “the same
thing that affects players, like nervousness, or being intimidated by the crowd (or mouthy
participants), or anticipating contact instead of waiting for them to occur.”); Sam Smith, Star
system runs afoul of fairness; O’Neal, Bryant benefit from officials’ calls, CHICAGO TRIBUNE,
June 2, 2002, at C6 (while critical of the performance of the referees, described the “[c]onspiracy
theories” to the effect that “TV wants big markets to win” and that “the league wants its stars in
the big series” as “nonsense.”).

52 Letter from Ralph Nader & League of Fans to Commissioner David J. Stern (June 4,
2002), available at http://www.leagueoffans.org/sternletter.html.

-75-

• Bavetta made nine errors in the game, five of which favored the Lakers
and four of which favored the Kings. None of these errors occurred in the
fourth quarter.

• Bernhardt made six errors, four of which favored the Lakers and two of
which favored the Kings. In the fourth quarter, Bernhardt made one error
favoring the Lakers.

• Delaney made four errors in the game, two of which favored the Lakers
and two of which favored the Kings. In the fourth quarter, Delaney made
three of his errors: two favoring the Lakers and one favoring the Kings.

The two errors favoring the Lakers involved the controversial plays
discussed above in which Divac was incorrectly called for a sixth foul and
Bryant was incorrectly not called for the forearm to Bibby’s face.53

We discussed Donaghy’s allegations with the three referees. Ted Bernhardt, who
is no longer employed by the League, was quoted in the New York Times after Donaghy’s
allegations this summer, saying that while he “wasn’t happy about” the way the game was called,
“I stand by my calls in that game. . . . I was right on. I believe in Dick Bavetta, and I believe in
53 The individual referees’ errors for the game sum to nineteen errors, which is four more
than the figure of fifteen errors mentioned above. This is because on each of four erroneous
plays, an error was attributed to two referees simultaneously. Likewise, the individual referees’
errors for the fourth quarter sum to four errors, which is one more than the figure of three errors
set out in the preceding paragraph. This is because on one erroneous play in the fourth quarter,
an error was attributed to two referees simultaneously. The reviewers believe that both Delaney
(in the lead position) and Bernhardt (in the slot position) should have called Bryant for an elbow
to the face of Bibby.

-76-

Bob Delaney, and I believe in the NBA, for that matter.”54 Bernhardt was also quoted in the
Sacramento Bee:

After the game, I wasn’t happy, not with a particular call, but it just
wasn’t a good game for us. . . . I know this is a horrible thing. But
we tried hard to get the calls right. I don’t understand. . . . I don’t
know what’s behind (the Tim Donaghy) situation, but I have never
been around a referee I thought cheated or was influenced in a
game. . . . I never imagined we’d be talking about this six years
later.55

Bernhardt told us that after these press reports appeared, Donaghy called him and
said he was disturbed by Bernhardt’s press comments. Bernhardt said that Donaghy then
proceeded to try to lead him and put words in his mouth. He said that Donaghy was incredibly
persistent and sounded like a conspiracy theorist. Bernhardt told us that Donaghy was pushing
him to agree that Dick Bavetta had said Bavetta was happy to have the series go to a seventh
game. Bernhardt said he told Donaghy, “I’d like to help you if I could, but that’s not the way it
happened.”

Bernhardt also told us that Bavetta and Delaney made mistakes, and they as a
crew had a bad night, but they all had done their best. Bernhardt told us that he thought highly of
the integrity of both Bavetta and Delaney. He left the phone call with Donaghy believing that
Donaghy was trying hard to make up a story to get a lesser sentence ― something Bernhardt
says he told his girlfriend right after the call. Bernhardt also said that NBA management never at
any time suggested to him or other referees that they hoped a series would be extended.

54 Howard Beck, Stern Unconcerned About F.B.I. Inquiries of Bavetta, N.Y. TIMES, June
13, 2008, at D3.

55 Ailene Voisin, Ex-ref: Off-night for crew Ted Bernhardt denies there was a conspiracy in
2002, SACRAMENTO BEE, June 15, 2008, at C1.

-77-

When we spoke to Bavetta and Delaney, both acknowledged making errors in the
game but emphatically denied making calls to favor the Lakers or to extend the series or
discussing such favoritism with Donaghy. Bavetta noted that while he had made errors early in
the game, they had been against both teams. He also pointed out that he had made no errors
during the critical fourth period of the game. He added that he was confident that any errors by
Delaney or Bernhardt were made in complete good faith.

When we spoke to Delaney, he told us that in every game he strives to be as
accurate a caller as possible, and his professional pride makes it difficult to live with the
inevitable unintentional mistakes he makes. The idea that he would set out intentionally to make
erroneous calls in front of a national audience ― subjecting himself to public criticism ― is, he
said, “simply absurd.” We found both men to be credible.

We also discussed Donaghy’s allegations with Ed T. Rush, who was Director of
Officials at the time. Rush was present in the arena and supervised the referees during the game.

He told us that he was well aware during the game that the referees were having a bad game and
making errors. Rush told us that he has reviewed the video of this game on a number of
occasions, and the pattern of calls, in his opinion, do not reflect favoritism. He added that it was
also inconceivable to him that any of the referees would set out intentionally to extend a series.

He pointed out that all of the referees are in competition each year to officiate playoff games and
said it was impossible for him to believe any referee would deliberately make erroneous calls and
subject himself or herself to having their calls repeatedly reviewed and criticized by the media.

Rush told us he thought that Bernhardt’s performance that night had been
satisfactory, and nothing about his performance suggested that he was trying to favor either team.

As to Bavetta, while he made a substantial number of errors, Rush felt there was nothing about

-78-

his call patterns that suggested he was deliberately trying to favor the Lakers. Rush also noted
that Bavetta had performed well in the fourth quarter, making no errors.

As to Delaney, Rush was aware that he was involved in the two most
controversial calls in the fourth quarter ― plays that Donaghy appears to single out as suggesting
manipulation. Rush told us that he has known Delaney for many years and believes Delaney is a
highly honorable person. He noted that Delaney had been a highly decorated law enforcement
officer before he joined the NBA. (Delaney served with the New Jersey State Police for fourteen
years before becoming an NBA referee. Delaney’s career included a three-year undercover
assignment in connection with a major organized crime investigation. In 1981, Delaney testified
as a law enforcement expert before a Senate subcommittee during hearings on waterfront
corruption. Senators Warren Rudman and Sam Nunn praised him for his effectiveness and
bravery. To this day, Delaney regularly gives speeches at federal law enforcement training
sessions and to undercover operatives in the United States and Canada.) 56

Rush also recalled that Delaney made only a few errors but was nonetheless quite
upset with the errors he had made in the fourth quarter. Having known and observed Delaney on
and off the floor, and knowing how hard he tried to avoid mistakes, Rush said that he could not
imagine Delaney ever deliberately manipulating a game. Rush told us that he had been in touch
with Delaney and his wife after the game and learned that Delaney was so upset about his
performance in that game that he had suffered sleepless nights.

Rush also told us that he thought that it had been a mistake (for which he took
some responsibility) to have teamed Delaney with Bavetta in this game. While Delaney and

56 Waterfront Corruption: Hearing Before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 97th Cong. 349-83 (1981) (testimony
of Trooper Robert Delaney, Detective, New Jersey State Police).

-79-

Bavetta once had a close friendship, they had a falling out in connection with a personal matter
some years before this game, and Rush felt that the poor chemistry between the two referees
contributed to the crew’s poor performance in this game.

We reviewed the video of this game and discussed with NBA Basketball
Operations personnel the erroneous call against Divac and the non-call against Bryant.

They
explained to us how Delaney and Bernhardt (on the second call) could have missed these calls.

The first play, which resulted in Divac receiving his sixth foul, came while Divac was on the
floor battling for the ball. Delaney saw numerous players in the scramble and blew his whistle as
Bryant was moving in front of him, obstructing his view of the play. The instinct to make a call
was understandable; Delaney just made the wrong one.

The second play occurred with twelve seconds left in the game, when Kobe
Bryant, trying to free himself on an inbounds play, elbowed Mike Bibby in the face. While
Bryant’s elbow, though seemingly inadvertent, was a foul, it occurred only after Bibby grabbed
Bryant’s arms in what appears to be an effort to prevent him from freeing himself to receive the
inbounds pass. Delaney was positioned on the baseline at an angle that prevented him from
getting a good look at the play. Bibby had his back to Delaney, and contact of the nature of the
elbow to Bibby’s nose is often incidental. The blood from Bibby’s nose was not seen until later.

Bernhardt was the slot official at the time. Bryant moved away from Bernhardt’s position, so
Bernhardt also did not have a good angle to see Bryant’s elbow to Bibby. Indeed, the Basketball
Operations personnel told us that the television camera had by far the best view of this play.
As noted above, we also re-interviewed all of the current referees after Donaghy’s
allegations surfaced in June 2008. There was not a single referee among the dozens we
interviewed who supported Donaghy’s claims about this game. The referees told us that the

-80-

consistent message from the League is to make accurate calls. It has never been suggested to
them that they should favor a team or try to extend a series.

Some referees also told us that no rational referee would deliberately make
incorrect calls in a game (let alone a playoff game) and subject him or herself to the
embarrassment of having calls replayed over and over on ESPN. Some told us that not only was
the allegation illogical for that reason, but there also is no economic incentive for referees to try
to extend a series. While a referee receives additional compensation for each round of the
playoffs he or she officiates, this compensation is the same for a given round whether a referee
officiates one or two games in that playoff round.

A number of referees also noted that, because of the strained personal relationship
between Delaney and Bavetta, the two men were unlikely to engage in any cooperative venture,
let alone one that involved clearly improper conduct. A number of referees also offered the
following observation: Game 6 was a controversial game with which almost every veteran
referee is familiar. Because it is well known that the referees made numerous errors in the game,
it was easy for Donaghy ― trying to avoid a jail sentence by providing information about other
referees ― to suggest that he had a conversation with one of the referees to the effect that two of
them hoped to extend the series.

One of the referees told us that he had discussed this game with Donaghy years
earlier. While Donaghy had noted the many errors by the referees, he never suggested that he
had heard that referees in this game made bad calls to extend the series. We also found it
noteworthy that, while referee basketball gossip travels quickly throughout the referee ranks, the
referees had not heard any suggestion that Bavetta and Delaney had tried to extend the series.

-81-

We have not seen or heard evidentiary or logical support for Donaghy’s
allegations about this game.

http://www.nba.com/media/PedowitzReport.pdf

[Allanon]

The game was, in the opinion of the reviewers, poorly officiated. There were a
total of fifteen incorrect calls or non-calls. Of these fifteen errors, eight favored the Lakers,
while seven favored the Kings.

15 bad calls; 8 in favor of the Lakers, 7 in favor of the Kings.

Sounds like human error to me, and a +1 to the Lakers doesn't sound like favoritism.

I'll bet you can find almost every game has ref errors and 1 team having a +1 favorable call advantage.

[Galileo]

15 bad calls; 8 in favor of the Lakers, 7 in favor of the Kings.

Sounds like human error to me, and a +1 to the Lakers doesn't sound like favoritism.

I'll bet you can find almost every game has ref errors and 1 team having a +1 favorable call advantage.

That's what the report says. That's not what the game film says.

You are a Lakers fan, so you are not credible.

[Allanon]

That's what the report says. That's not what the game film says.

You are a Lakers fan, so you are not credible.

I'm just quoting the report, there's no credibility needed.

For all the conspiracy theories on that game, the Lakers only had a +1 favorable call advantage.

Anybody can read it and say the same thing, it doesn't have to be Lakerfan :lol

[Galileo]

After reading through the report. It is obvious that DELANEY is the crooked ref.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's what the report says. That's not what the game film says.

You are a Lakers fan, so you are not credible.

Roland Beech, who is not (to my knowledge) a Lakers fan or someone associated with the NBA, came up with strikingly similar numbers.

http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm

According to Beech's study, which characterized calls on a spectrum from "yes" to "very dubious" with intermediate categories of "probably," "maybe," and
"dubious," the tally was like this for "maybes" "dubious" and "very dubious" calls:

Bavetta -- 9 calls; 6 for LA, 3 for SAC
Delaney -- 10 calls; 5 for LA, 5 for SAC
Bernhardt -- 9 calls; 6 for LA, 3 for SAC

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

David Stern said Donaghy was a "rogue" official and other than him there is absolutely no funny business in basketball. Meanwhile, Donaghy is basically trying to claim his gambling had little to no impact on the game outcome and he's only a minescule part of a big crooked mess that fixes games.

Chances are, neither one of those extremes is right, it's probably somewhere in the middle. At the same time, a commishioner with a loving wife and tons of money who has a lot to lose is more credible than a broke convict who's wife said, "See you in the next life" with absolutely nothing to lose.

If David Stern gets caught in a lie, he gets booted as commish and could possibly face jail time while basically never being able to show his face in public again. If Donaghy gets caught lying, nothing changes. He's still broke, his wife still hates him, and he still has no future. It seems pretty obvious who to believe right now.

[Galileo]

Roland Beech, who is not (to my knowledge) a Lakers fan or someone associated with the NBA, came up with strikingly similar numbers.

http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm

According to Beech's study, which characterized calls on a spectrum from "yes" to "very dubious" with intermediate categories of "probably," "maybe," and
"dubious," the tally was like this for "maybes" "dubious" and "very dubious" calls:

Bavetta -- 9 calls; 6 for LA, 3 for SAC
Delaney -- 10 calls; 5 for LA, 5 for SAC
Bernhardt -- 9 calls; 6 for LA, 3 for SAC

Good find:

he says that of the "dubious" calls, 7 favored LA and 1 favored SAC.

of the very dubious, only one, it favored SAC.

Then factor in both calls by DELANEY, the reverse-call on Bibby/Kobe, which is really two very dubious calls in one. I that was rated as "dubious", it should be re-classified as two "very dubious".

Also, the call on Divac by Delaney should also be "very deubious".

We now have 5 dubious calls for LA and 1 for SAC, and 3 very dubious for LA, and 1 of SAC.

[FromWayDowntown]

Good find:

he says that of the "dubious" calls, 7 favored LA and 1 favored SAC.

of the very dubious, only one, it favored SAC.

Then factor in both calls by DELANEY, the reverse-call on Bibby/Kobe, which is really two very dubious calls in one. I that was rated as "dubious", it should be re-classified as two "very dubious".

Also, the call on Divac by Delaney should also be "very deubious".

We now have 5 dubious calls for LA and 1 for SAC, and 3 very dubious for LA, and 1 of SAC.

And you're looking at all of this objectively, without any sort of agenda or preconceived notions about what the analysis should prove, right?

[Galileo]

And you're looking at all of this objectively, without any sort of agenda or preconceived notions about what the analysis should prove, right?

Yes, I am an expert at conspiracy theories, weeding out the bogus ones from the real ones.

And this is not a 'theory". Donaghy is an eyewitness. When you have an eyewitness to a conspiracy, it is not a theory.

DELANEY and STERN entered into a conspiracy. Bavetta is what I call a sloppy helper to the conspiracy. He was only involved implicitly by suggestion.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, I am an expert at conspiracy theories, weeding out the bogus ones from the real ones.:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Galileo]

Take a look at Delaney's staements, compared to the other refs. DELANEY sounds like a professional liar. He knows exactly what to saying, using the most advnaced PR spin. His statements look rehearsed and targetted.

the NBA "admits" the reffing was bad that game. That is the cover story. Wow, really, the reffing was bad. You see, by making an admission, the NBA is trying to trick you in thinking they are honest. But don't be duped, they are only admitting the obvious, which means they are not really admitting anything.

[jag]

Take a look at Delaney's staements, compared to the other refs. DELANEY sounds like a professional liar. He knows exactly what to saying, using the most advnaced PR spin. His statements look rehearsed and targetted.

the NBA "admits" the reffing was bad that game. That is the cover story. Wow, really, the reffing was bad. You see, by making an admission, the NBA is trying to trick you in thinking they are honest. But don't be duped, they are only admitting the obvious, which means they are not really admitting anything.

Why do you even watch the games? The outcome has obviously already been decided.

[Galileo]

Why do you even watch the games? The outcome has obviously already been decided.

Did you not read the thread?

I root for Tim Duncan and the Spurs because they are CONSPIRACY BREAKERS. They overcome obstacles to achieve greatness.

:flag:

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Did you not read the thread?

I root for Tim Duncan and the Spurs because they are CONSPIRACY BREAKERS. They overcome obstacles to achieve greatness.

:flag:


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.

[Allanon]

Did you not read the thread?

I root for Tim Duncan and the Spurs because they are CONSPIRACY BREAKERS. They overcome obstacles to achieve greatness.

:flag:

There's also parts speaking about the Spurs gettin' the cheat to win.

It's too convenient to say the Spurs honestly won all 4 rings while the Lakers cheated their way to 4.

Like I said, I can accept it when Sunfan or Mavfan bring up conspiracy theories...they have a reason to gripe. But it's crazy when Spurfan or Lakerfan brings it up.

edit: What DoK said.

[Whisky Dog]

*An NBA review found 15 incorrect calls or non-calls those fateful hours at Staples Center, eight favoring the Lakers and seven favoring the Kings. In the fourth quarter, the most controversial time of all, the league determined that two favored the Lakers and one favored the Kings.

*Bavetta had nine mistakes in the game, five favoring the Lakers, and none in the fourth quarter. Bernhardt had six errors, four favoring the Lakers, and one in the fourth that favored the Lakers. Delaney had four misses, two for each team, and three in the fourth. Two of those favored the Lakers, including the most heated decision of all: Kobe Bryant not being called for the forearm to Mike Bibby's face.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/sports/kings/archives/015814.html

Looks like Bobby Covert (Delaney) had a better night than Bernhardt did.

My personal review of my latest work performance is that I'm a bad ass perfect employee who deserves a 25% raise.

There's a reason people or organizations shouldn't review themselves.

[wildbill2u]

Why hasn't anyone brought up the ref that has it out for Tim? It was discussed a lot on this website last year and most agreed that he called more fouls against Tim than proper. A foul for laughing on the bench?

So isn't that a form of cheating, even if the design is not to affect games? And can't it afftect games if a superstar gets tied up with fouls that most refs wouldn't call.

[Whisky Dog]

Why do you even watch the games? The outcome has obviously already been decided.

Who said that? In shading or manipulation the outcome isn't decided only the table is slanted to a degree towards the desired outcome. Doesn't mean it's a guarantee the outcome the league or refs want will happen they just influence to a degree in that direction. Evidence points directly to this being plausible I don't know why there are so many people in this thread that can't see the huge difference between shading/manipulation and a fix.

[Allanon]

Why hasn't anyone brought up the ref that has it out for Tim? It was discussed a lot on this website last year and most agreed that he called more fouls against Tim than proper. A foul for laughing on the bench?

So isn't that a form of cheating, even if the design is not to affect games? And can't it afftect games if a superstar gets tied up with fouls that most refs wouldn't call.

I saw Joey and Timmy chillin' at the mall, there ain't no conspiracy there.

[EmptyMan]

If Jose fcuking Conseco can save baseball...



All you have to do is watch NBA games to know something is going on.

[Whisky Dog]

Why hasn't anyone brought up the ref that has it out for Tim? It was discussed a lot on this website last year and most agreed that he called more fouls against Tim than proper. A foul for laughing on the bench?

So isn't that a form of cheating, even if the design is not to affect games? And can't it afftect games if a superstar gets tied up with fouls that most refs wouldn't call.

Yes it is a form of cheating or at least bias and it's called shading. The topic this thread should be about but some people just can't Comprehend that this isn't a fix situation but a manipulation one.

[FromWayDowntown]

My personal review of my latest work performance is that I'm a bad ass perfect employee who deserves a 25% raise.

There's a reason people or organizations shouldn't review themselves.

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

[duncan228]

I saw Joey and Timmy chillin' at the mall, there ain't no conspiracy there.

:lol

[Whisky Dog]

I saw Joey and Timmy chillin' at the mall, there ain't no conspiracy there.

Actually I think it's Jack Nies that had the problem with TD for a long time after Timmy grabbed him to move him out of the way during a play and Nies was a little bitch about it.

That's the problem is the ref ego and bias in NBA.

[Allanon]

Actually I think it's Jack Nies that had the problem with TD for a long time after Timmy grabbed him to move him out of the way during a play and Nies was a little bitch about it.

That's the problem is the ref ego and bias in NBA.

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

[duncan228]

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


NBA suspends Tim Duncan
Dec 01, 2003

Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs was suspended for one game by the NBA on Monday for pushing an official to the floor.

The two-time league MVP and five-time all-star made contact with Jack Nies in the third quarter of the Spurs' loss Saturday night to the Golden State Warriors.

Duncan was setting a pick near the Spurs' 3-point line as Nies was trying to untangle himself from another player. Duncan cut to the high post, put both hands on the official to clear some room, and Nies tumbled to the floor. The official quickly got up and called a technical.

"Circumstances and facts have to be considered in each case, and I think that clearly, here, it's obvious that the contact was both inadvertent and accidental,'' Spurs coach Gregg Popovich said before San Antonio's game against the Los Angeles Clippers. ``To be suspended, the rule states that it's got to be intentional contact. So whether you want to speak intellectually, philosophically, factually, there's absolutely no support for such a decision. It's just a bad decision. It's absurd.''

Popovich said his star player was surprised by the league's decision.

"Tim was shocked,'' Popovich said. ``I mean, he almost let out a laugh, like `Are you kidding me?' It was just like a funny incident to the fans, and nothing was written about it. He was flabbergasted.''

Duncan, also the series MVP when the Spurs won the NBA title last spring, was out of the lineup against the Clippers.

[jag]

Who said that? In shading or manipulation the outcome isn't decided only the table is slanted to a degree towards the desired outcome. Doesn't mean it's a guarantee the outcome the league or refs want will happen they just influence to a degree in that direction. Evidence points directly to this being plausible I don't know why there are so many people in this thread that can't see the huge difference between shading/manipulation and a fix.

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.