Reply With Quote
Strictly speaking, civil litigation is not a result of criminal behaviour.
And denying voting rights is uncons utional, regardless of past history.
So if franchise one loses money because of some refs illegal fixing, and as a result they must "Lay Off" some employees, these employees don't lose anything? They don't lose a pension perhaps, or a chance at continuing the job that provides for their family?
Each franchise is a business within a business. This must be taken into account.
The popularity of players may decrease and thus decrease merchandise sales etc. The people on the bottom matter.
I have seen no proof that money simply changed hands. Even if it did, it still rightfully belongs to said franchise that was cheated. Overall league revenue could've been damaged depending on the manner in which a certain team loses etc.
Strictly speaking, civil litigation is not a result of criminal behaviour.
And denying voting rights is uncons utional, regardless of past history.
And how does jail-time fit that crime?
And unlike insider trading, the money wasn't lost to the inside trader, the money was given to a different franchise in the NBA with revenue sharing, and other gamblers who bet differently. I would say those that paid Tim off were more analogous to the inside traders, and even then, even with the point shaving, someone still could have gambled correctly just as likely as he could have gambled wrong.
Again, this isn't like WorldCom or Enron. Savings shouldn't have been wiped out unless someone was a compulsive gambler. The same money was still paid to the NBA, just from different ticket buyers in different cities.
Nobody said it wasn't a crime. I am saying he should be punished appropriately: Taking away his freedom does not equate. Taking away some of his rights, and him doing community service, and a civil suit are more appropriate.
If the game loses its integrity, ALL teams suffer in lost future revenue.
Taking voting rights away is not unprecedented. I think certain crimes that prescribe just that. I know for a fact that criminals in jail in some states do not have the right to vote.
Therefore, the NBA sues Tim, just like a case of libel/slander.
That is all true. But just like there is no evidence money changed hands, there is no evidence to the contrary either, at least that I have seen.
Were NBA teams all discrete franchises, like in some Euro systems, this would be a more black and white case. But because of revenue sharing, it becomes more murky.
Also, while people on the bottom in 1 city got hurt, presumably, a team in another city would presumably get the same boost. This may have happened on its own with or without the ref scandal. It stands to reason if 1 team lost, the other team won. Therefore the players, workers, surrounding restaurants of the loosing city was hurt, while those of the city who won would benefit.
Again, what he did was a crime, I am not arguing that. I just think a more appropriate punishment should have been enacted.
a felon loses his voting rights
Oh, yeah, that's a deterrent:
"I won't risk making all this money off gambling and fixing games because if I get caught . . . they'll take it all away from me!"
Take it away from him, and more... Damages are often in excess of what was 'stolen'.
If you think that someone shouldn't go to "Pound you in the ass" prison for attempting to steal the livelihood of many individuals, then that's your opinion.
His attempt to damage these individuals is all that matters. It's like "attempted (insert other crimes here)" that result in punishment.
The revenue sharing etc is irrelevant if you look at it in this light.
If I attempted to lift the integrity, monetary gain (present and future), and longevity of your business i'm sure you'd be singing a much different tune.
He's a single not-especially wealthy person. There's absolutely no way the league would be able to recoup anywhere close to the equivalent damage done, even if they sequestered the rest of his life savings.
And how about the mob guys behind him. Now their risk/benefit calculation is: "We can make a crapload of money fixing games, and if they arrest our referees, since there's no jail time, we don't have to worry about any plea bargaining to get us. And even if they do plea bargain, the worst that can happen is that we get named in a lawsuit. So all we have to do is fix the books to hide our money. And even if they find out that we're cooking the books, all they can do is sue us some more!"
Say . . . are you Bernie Madoff's lawyer, per chance?
I don't wish any permanent bodily harm to him. He's in jail doing time for his crime. The should take the other guy and strap him to a chair with an electrical cattle prod stuck to his genitals and zap him silly.
Given some of what Donaghy threw against the wall in trying to get save his rear end during sentencing, I suspect that Donaghy's memoir will play right into the hands of the conspiracy theorists by suggesting that it offers a behind the curtain look at NBA kingmaking. As one who is disinclined to believe such theories in any event, I think the fundamental problem with what Donaghy will offer is that he's got an axe to grind and, accordingly, would seem to have little credibility. He'll throw around Game 6 of the 2002 WCF and he'll throw Bavetta out there, too. But unless he has something new to offer and unless he can source what he does offer, I think it will just be noise -- believed by those who think there's a conspiracy and disbelieved by those who don't.
The fascinating story of NBA officiating that I still want to have developed is the story of Ted Bernhardt. Bernhardt was a fast-rising official who very quickly worked his way up to being a Finals-level official (he worked the Finals in 2002) and was among the elite offiicals in the Game until he abruptly disappeared from the NBA around the start of the 03-04 season. Bernhardt was among the officials who worked Game 6 of SAC/LAL in 2002; he also had the misfortune of calling a foul at the end of regulation of the 2003 All-Star game and denying a game-winning moment to Michael Jordan. I thought I read somewhere that Bernhardt was dealing with some "personal issues" that may have forced him away from officiating, but given his stature among officials between 2000-2003, his sudden disappearance from basketball after his participation in such an oft-questioned game and his failure to resurface after several years away strikes me as a very curious story.
Then it would be advantageous to go after those mob guys who instigated it (as I mentioned before), and sue them as well.
Is the issue deterrence or retribution? If it is deterrence, Tim is ruined financially. Every penny he earns goes to the NBA. Any asset he owned would be the property of the NBA. He would have no right to vote. He would have to be obligated to do community service. That is a heavy burden to pay. Jail time doesn't serve retribution to the NBA, other than perhaps the liquidation and confiscation of his assets. And If it is punishment we are after, ruining his reputation and taking away rights related to his crimes seem appropriate.
You can't put a price tag on integrity. It is priceless. Jail time can't amount to the loss of integrity, but he must serve nonetheless.
There must be some punishment, and clearly his financial assets cannot be determined because of integrity being priceless. Thus he must serve. Simply taking a portion of his assets will not suffice because of the inability to gage integrity monetarily.
The loss of a portion of his life, for the attempt to take the portion of the life of others.
sons if only all NBA officials (executives included) could get the same treatment ... then maybe the NBA would actually become a legit, fair sport again and not just big business "sports entertainment".
I just made the case (3 or 4 times) that jobs were not lost (like in WorldCom/Enron), they just went from 1 city to another, through no fault of those cities, and which might have happened anyways.
>>>>>>attempt<<<<<<
Are you (we) looking for justice through retribution, or deterrence, or both?
Taking away integrity related rights (perhaps some I am not thinking of) seems like a direct means of 'he misused it, now he has it no longer' type thinking. Putting him in a de-facto state of being beaten doesn't seem appropriate. Financially, he is ruined, which limits his de-facto freedoms.
And if we are looking to punish him for the jobs he theoretically took, like a double technical, should he be rewarded for the exact same jobs he theoretically created? If a team loosing by a bigger margin caused jobs to be lost in 1 city, it stands to reason that a team winning winning by a bigger margin would create those same jobs.
Donaghy got G-Checked
I still struggle with the rationale that diverting revenues through illegal means is somehow not criminal.
And in cases of WorldCom and Enron, the shady accounting practices did not create job lost. In fact, it created jobs for a long period of time. The subsequent collapse in the company tied directly to the lost of consumer confidence created job lost.
Which when applied to the case with Tim Donaghy and the NBA, is simply a case where the consumer confidence has not eroded to a point where there is a total collapse. However, one could argue that certain job loses, or the lack of creation of new jobs, could be attributed to eroded consumer confidence in the NBA product.
BTW, just looked it up, convicted felons cannot vote in 46 states while in jail, and 10 states even after release. You guys have a pretty screwed up system.
jacobdrj, just stop. You're wrong. You're ridiculously wrong. It's not even worth debating because anytime someone tries, you don't pay any attention to what they're saying.
Do you realize that this could have DESTROYED the NBA? Completely destroyed it. Your at ude towards this is insanely naive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions