Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, again, if you deceive your employer and customers, but nobody asks you about it, are you lying?
No, you're not.
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.
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 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
That's not what I remember reading. Maybe someone can find a link.
Bernhardt knows what happened in game 6.
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.
Professional liars shouldn't be believed, but amateur liars in a different profession should be. Are their lies more truthful then?
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 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...es/015814.html
Bernhardt did not have and "off night". Delaney and Bavetta did.
Can we get the stats on fouls called by refs for the game?
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?
*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...es/015814.html
Looks like Bobby Covert (Delaney) had a better night than Bernhardt did.
No, I believe Bernhardt is honest and under pressure.
So he's honest, but he's not telling the truth?
Is he honestly lying, or lying honestly?
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.
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...
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 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 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 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 compe ion 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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions