Reply With Quote
Thank you. I didn't know anyone outside of Utah cared or knew about that.
for anyone interested, here's a link to the entire NYT article..
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/sp...r=2&ref=sports
The Gravity of Donaghy’s Accusations Is Unclear
By HOWARD BECK
LOS ANGELES — Troubling new allegations of referee misconduct have dampened the celebratory mood here at the N.B.A. finals, although the line between temporary crisis and long-term scandal is not clear.
Tim Donaghy, the disgraced former referee, has accused league officials of manipulating games. Commissioner David Stern has dismissed the claims as “baseless” and the desperate words of a convicted felon who is seeking a light sentence after admitting to conspiring with gamblers.
Coaches, players and fans are left to navigate the rhetoric and the accusations without a reliable compass. “The whole Donaghy thing just makes me sick,” Boston Coach Doc Rivers said Wednesday as the Celtics and the Lakers were preparing for Game 4 of the finals.
Donaghy’s latest accusations were contained in a four-page letter filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Brooklyn. In the letter, Donaghy said that N.B.A. executives directed referees “to manipulate games” in order to “boost ticket sales and television ratings,” and he cited several alleged examples, including a highly disputed 2002 playoff series between the Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.
When he spoke with reporters Tuesday night, Stern repeatedly stated that all of Donaghy’s claims have been investigated by the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors.
“We said it in July, and we’ll say it again on the first anniversary: there’s one criminal here,” Stern said.
His implication was that if the authorities had discovered other criminal misconduct, they would have acted on it. That is not necessarily the case, according to legal experts.
“It takes a long time to investigate cases,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law at Loyola Law School and a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.
Levenson said there were many possible explanations for the absence of criminal charges. She said authorities could still be investigating; they could have “high su ion” of a criminal act but insufficient proof; or the allegations could simply be false. In some instances — like Donaghy’s accusation of impropriety in a 2002 playoff series — the statute of limitations could have expired, she said.
“It doesn’t at all follow that because they didn’t file charges that you can dismiss the allegations,” Levenson said. But, she added: “We have to take it for what it is — allegations. Whether they’re true or false probably remains to be answered.”
Levenson said the allegations could prompt the court to delay Donaghy’s sentencing hearing, scheduled for July 14 in Brooklyn.
Levenson and another former prosecutor raised questions over the timing of the claims. Donaghy’s lawyer, John Lauro, had already filed a plea letter last month, but without any of the provocative details that were presented Tuesday.
“It looks more desperate,” Levenson said of making the claims now. “It looks like he might be stretching. It has less credibility. Things that are in sentencing memos look like last gasps to get whatever they can from the court. We always look at those with a grain of salt. It doesn’t mean it’s not true. It doesn’t mean it is true.”
Ed McDonald, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said that making the claims now “detracts from the significance of what he had to say, by Lauro’s not raising it in the first letter.”
Donaghy was arrested last summer and pleaded guilty to two felony counts in August. He faces up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine, but he is expected to receive a lighter sentence for cooperating with the authorities.
Lauro provided enough details in the letter so that specific games that were allegedly tainted by referee misconduct could be recognized. The letter pointed to Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, in which the Lakers were awarded 40 free throws, including 27 in the fourth quarter, in a victory over the Kings that forced a Game 7.
According to Lauro’s letter: “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 N.B.A., and that night, it was in the N.B.A.’s interest to add another game to the series.”
The game was refereed by three tenured veterans: Bavetta, Ted Bernhardt and Bob Delaney. Bernhardt has retired from the league. Under N.B.A. rules, Bavetta and Delaney are not permitted to speak to the news media. However, Delaney, a former New Jersey state trooper, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claims in an interview with ESPN.
“This is not the first time a known or convicted criminal has lied about me before the judicial system,” Delaney said Wednesday. “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.”
The FBI has made inquiries about Bavetta, according to a former N.B.A. referee who was interviewed by federal agents last year.
Hue Hollins, who retired in 2003 and has been outspoken about the N.B.A.’s treatment of referees, said he met for about an hour with two agents from New York before last season.
In addition to asking questions about Donaghy, Hollins said the agents inquired extensively about Bavetta. They asked if he ever noticed that Bavetta “was making sure that the home team would win, and I told them I had no idea because I didn’t work with him a lot.”
Hollins said the agents did not ask about a specific team, game or series and did not ask about Game 6 in 2002.
“They were very specific about their questioning, as though they had heard something,” Hollins said. “They knew exactly what they were going after.”
He said that he didn’t tell them much about either Donaghy or Bavetta, saying he had never noticed su ious activity by either man. He said it would be difficult for a single referee to affect the outcome of a game.
Mark Cuban, the outspoken Dallas Mavericks owner, who has been a leading critic of the N.B.A.’s officiating program, cast doubt on Donaghy’s claim that league officials had orchestrated anything.
“There’s no way on God’s green Earth that David Stern has ever done anything to influence the outcome of a game,” Cuban told ESPN.com.
Two current N.B.A. referees, in separate interviews, also said Donaghy’s claims were not credible. “I’ve been refereeing since I was 18 years old; I’ve never suspected a referee of cheating in my life,” said a referee, who required anonymity because the N.B.A. prohibits referees from speaking to the news media.
Another referee said that Donaghy appeared to be cherry-picking the most well-known and most-controversial games in order to make the biggest impact.
“He took a poorly refereed game that everyone knew was a poorly refereed game,” said the referee, referring to Game 6. “He knows where to punch.”
Donaghy’s charges have given new life to conspiracy theories about N.B.A. officiating, generating su ion and conjecture in blogs and on sports talk shows.
Given the intensity of the coverage, there is also the possibility of Congressional hearings. There is no indication that the House committee that investigated the steroids scandal in baseball will take up the matter.
Scot Pollard, a former Kings center who fouled out of the game in question, sounded doubtful about Donaghy’s charges.
“You can’t put credibility in a guy that wasn’t there, didn’t ref the game and doesn’t have a lot of friends in this world right now,” said Pollard, who now plays for Boston. “That game was controversial, anyway. It’s an easy one for somebody to make up a conspiracy theory about.”
Thank you. I didn't know anyone outside of Utah cared or knew about that.
I don't know who was officiating game 6 of the 1997 Finals.
Jazz had the chance to tie the game in the closing minutes, Shandon Anderson went to the rim and Pippen's block attempt should have been called for goaltending, but it wasn't
I see it the other way. If the NBA was openly trying to conspire with the goal of making more money by lengthening series and favoring big markets, that makes the Spurs winning four championships during the middle of this age even more impressive. No way the NBA would conspire to have podunk muddy river San Antonio win -- four times. And only one Game 7 in the four championship runs?
That's domination against the conspiring forces.
I see it the other way. If the NBA was openly trying to conspire with the goal of making more money by lengthening series and favoring big markets, that makes the Spurs winning four championships during the middle of this age even more impressive. No way the NBA would conspire to have podunk muddy river San Antonio win -- four times. And only one Game 7 in the four championship runs?
That's domination against the conspiring forces.
You got that right
We should have 10 les by now
And in addition to the three point shot that got waved off they gave a 3 to Kerr about two posessions later that was clearly shot after the 24 second clock expired. 98' wasn't so bad, only the pushoff, but the Jazz got royally hosed by Bavetta in 97.
It's cool you guys remember that stuff.
No. The Spurs have always been on the beneficial side of officiating, there is nothing more impressive about their championships than any other team.I see it the other way. If the NBA was openly trying to conspire with the goal of making more money by lengthening series and favoring big markets, that makes the Spurs winning four championships during the middle of this age even more impressive. No way the NBA would conspire to have podunk muddy river San Antonio win -- four times. And only one Game 7 in the four championship runs?
That's domination against the conspiring forces.
Yes because the NBA wants a team from the poor South Texas market that they never even wanted in the league in the first place to win playoff games. Wake the F up, Kobe Quotes.
I disagree. The Spurs won in spite of the refs. They don't want a small market team winning it all. Trust me, I know.
Maybe NBA players will play in Europe again.
Looking at the facts, the Spurs have not had to face anything tougher than any other team who has won the Finals. They have never had to win in spite of refs conspiring against them, if anything they have always been on the favorable side of the refs. Those are the facts chicken-little.
Name me the exact instances in which the refs were actively conspiring to keep the Spurs from winning.
Good points, Kobe Quotes. Obviously shooting a turnaround jumper in .4 is perfectly legal, as is tackling someone going for a game-winning three-pointer.
Really though, go back and read my quotes. I said that if the NBA was openly trying to conspire during this era, that'd make the Spurs' championships even more impressive. Keyword being "if". If the NBA wasn't, then Spurs fans will just have to accept four regular championships.
Don't you have some more ref complaining to do or is that only after losses? You know because the NBA obviously conspires against its biggest and most cherished market.
-Dallas 06
-Lakers 04
-Knicks 99 (shot clock goes out on spurs side only at MSG during elimination game?!??)
Honestly, I think Stern not necessarily helped but "allowed" San Antonio to win those championships as sort of a decoy. For the longest while, every time someone brought up that the league might be fixed people would say "No because the Spurs are a small market and would be bad for business, they would never let them win if it was rigged." It was like the perfect alibi. Then in the even numbered years, it was easier for Stern to manipulate outcomes and do things in order to make more money for the league.
Evidently you've never watched Duncan get chopped 4-5 times each play while in the post with no foul called.
But of course, I don't expect you to see that. Only objective fans see stuff like that. I've openly been vocal when I feel the Spurs got the benefit of the doubt this year, and I definitely think we had some games where the officials swallowed their whistles.
That said, the Lakers would have 0 les this decade if the games were called 100% fair. Shaq would have fouled out in the first quarter of nearly every single game he started in. But hey, what's basketball without watching a bigger, stronger guy push and knock other players out of the way because his only real method of scoring is inside 4 feet? Makes sense to me.
They won't lose prestige because people would think their les were fixed. They'll lose prestige because they would have won championships in a formerly-major niche league nobody takes seriously.
Speaking of which, if officials are told to swallow their whistles at the end of games, then what the is Dirk doing shooting a FT to send Game 7 to overtime?
It's sad, really. The NBA has been so arrogant for so long, and now they are going to pay dearly for it.
Except that the Spurs won twice when the NBA was negotiating television deals. No sane businessman would give up hundreds of millions to form an alibi when he could have waited one more year to form an alibi and have those hundreds of millions in his pocket.
And if Stern really wanted an alibi, he would let even the Mavs sniff a trophy . . .
its over. the end for the NBA as we know it.
good. some huge changes need to happen.
i truly believe that Spurs vs Celtics wouldve been friggin epic. more so than this one this year.
better basketball, better players, and better ratings.
Games 3, 4, 5, and 6 of that series all were kind of interesting. It would fit with the "extend the series" hypothesis.Speaking of which, if officials are told to swallow their whistles at the end of games, then what the is Dirk doing shooting a FT to send Game 7 to overtime?
It's sad, really. The NBA has been so arrogant for so long, and now they are going to pay dearly for it.
Stern has done dumber things. I don't even begin to try to understand his reasoning or decision making.
And why is that?
As an outsider I completely agree with this sentiment. The Spurs being a small market team an winning is unbelievable.I see it the other way. If the NBA was openly trying to conspire with the goal of making more money by lengthening series and favoring big markets, that makes the Spurs winning four championships during the middle of this age even more impressive. No way the NBA would conspire to have podunk muddy river San Antonio win -- four times. And only one Game 7 in the four championship runs?
That's domination against the conspiring forces.
Isn't that basically what MLB is doing about steroids in baseball?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
