Reply With Quote
The Spurs would ahve won 10 les without the anti-small market conspiracy.
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.
Last edited by Galileo; 10-29-2009 at 04:57 PM.
The Spurs would ahve won 10 les without the anti-small market conspiracy.
That is common, and is no different than a mob boss orchestarting conspiracies, while lower level mobsters go off and do their own conspiracies.
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.
He can do it, if he doesn't get caught.
That isn't an answer.
Deadspin is taking the heat. Thank God for the Internet. Let's play ball, folks.
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.
NBA to investigate new accusations by Tim Donaghy
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 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.
I think local and federal authorities would do a better job, if there is actually anything to investigate.
I agree with that.
Admission by a party-opponent, FRE 801(d)(2)
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.
You're not married, are you?
The Spurs have won four les 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 le because of it, and that's only one instance.
Do you guys think it a bit stange that in Doneghy's excerpts, he did not mention that legendary fixer, Bennett Salvatore?
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.
Last edited by senorglory; 10-29-2009 at 08:09 PM. Reason: a;slkdjf;alskf
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.
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.
Okay Galileo......you're on. Post it.
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 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
