Reply With Quote
How many thread are you going to post this in, asshat?
Courting danger
NBA behemoths don't faze ref Bob Delaney. They're not the mob.
By DAVE SCHEIBER
Published October 31, 2006
ADVERTISEMENT
photo
[Times photo: Dirk Shadd]
Bob Delaney, a 20-year NBA referee, doesn't tremble when facing down 7-footers. He's hardened from his years undercover infiltrating the mob.
Part Two: An inside job
BRADENTON -- Even from a distance, you can pick him out in a heartbeat. Inside the crowded basketball gym where he runs his referee school, the man with the black NBA polo shirt, matching black sweats and stylishly slicked-back graying hair has his gaze fixed on the mob in motion - young hotshot players and student officials racing up and down the hardwood.
Right away, you realize Bob Delaney is considerably taller than he looks on national TV when he's maintaining order alongside the likes of Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant and so many towering pro players.
The 20-year veteran of countless NBA battles - a respected crew chief known for his hard-nosed, fearless style - stands 6 feet 1 with an athletic, 188-pound physique that most 55-year-old men would envy. There is also a distinctive presence about him, emanating from his streetwise New Jersey accent and calm blue eyes that have stared into much worse than the frequent glares of angry multimillionaire players and coaches.
On this morning, the Bradenton resident can be found courtside by a yellow 20-foot scaffold. It is the final session of an intensive, four-day program of his Officiating Academy in IMG's spacious basketball gymnasium, part of the sprawling Nick Bollettieri sports complex that is home turf to such marquee athletes as tennis player Maria Sharapova and golfer Paula Creamer.
He is busy talking into a miniature mike attached to a long wire that winds its way to a video camera high above the fast-paced action. All his comments and insights are recorded, so graduates can return to their referee jobs in high school, college and the pros with a personalized DVD critique from the master.
"Very good, very good," Delaney, head of IMG's entire sports officiating program, says encouragingly into the mike when one of his pupils makes a proper call. "But I wouldn't get into a big smiling thing about it. You don't want to be smiling when you're making a call, as if it's a joke. This is business."
In another lifetime, long before he entertained thoughts of becoming an NBA referee, Delaney blew the whistle in a considerably different kind of business.
And he worked with a far different type of wire.
He wore one.
A game of life and death
There were no jocks in this world, except the one he put on to hide the tiny tape recorder inside the plastic cup, and the second jockstrap he would wear over that as an added precaution. One wire ran from the recorder up the side of his body under an arm, the other he pulled through the inside of his pants pocket so he could easily activate the record button.
You see, for nearly three years in the 1970s, Bob Delaney was Bobby Covert, an undercover cop for the New Jersey State Police on a special mission: infiltrate the mob.
His 21/2-year investigation of large organized crime families in New Jersey and Philadelphia, at a time when the mob was at the height of its power in America, could have been straight out of the Sopranos. Amid rumors that he had gone bad, he literally disappeared from the force to work with the state police and FBI. He became the fake president of a fake trucking company with a fake rap sheet. And gradually, he earned the trust of some of the most ruthless criminals in the Northeast.
In that realm, it was Delaney's ability to blend in, not stand out, that made him so successful. It kept him alive when one slip would have meant a bullet to the head. And the experience ultimately led to his future in the NBA and the heights he has achieved there.
Most stories about sports figures at the top of their games require a look at formative athletic moments and impressive stats in high school, college, the pros. In this one, the stat that mattered most was 30 - the number of indictments brought against members of the Genovese and Bruno crime families, the result of Delaney's undercover duty.
Most such stories involve the names of big sporting influences along the way. In this one, the high-profile moniker is Donnie Brasco - the alias used by fellow undercover cop Joe Pistone, whose story was made into the 1997 movie Donnie Brasco, starring Johnny Depp and Al Pacino. Delaney and Pistone crossed paths in a tense episode during the course of their investigations, and neither had any idea the other was actually with law enforcement.
"Myself and another undercover went to a sit-down to help mediate this beef with another family and Bobby was there," says Pistone, who spent six years in New York City infiltrating the Bonanno crime family. "He was very convincing. I was impressed, because if he loses the beef, he ends up dead."
Delaney's story is a study of a man forever changed by the hazardous duty of his early 20s, how he grappled with the unexpected psychological burden of living two lives simultaneously, how he refused to let fear hold him back in bitterness or seclusion in the years after.
And how the intimidation tactics he faces on an NBA court don't faze him in the slightest.
"Nothing," Delaney says with a half smile on his made-for-Hollywood face, "compares to what I lived through."
The making of an undercover cop
He grew up tough and confident in an Irish-Italian working class neighborhood in Paterson, N.J. And though he loved playing basketball, police work was always in the back of his mind.
His father, Robert Delaney, was a distinguished 30-year veteran of the New Jersey state trooper force and a captain in the 1970s. Back then, the agency not only patrolled the highways in uniform but sent a large number of officers into the field in plain clothes to do all manner of crime-fighting - from narcotics to murder investigations to busting up mob activity.
Delaney was a basketball standout for three years at Jersey City College but left before his senior year to join the state police in 1973. "My dad gave me my badge," he says. "It was a great moment that you remember your whole life."
Just 21, and with such a strong trooper background, Delaney seemed to have a terrific future. He was partnered with a veteran who had seen about everything on the job, Bob Scott, and was assigned to the rural area of Flemington, where there was no local police department. They lived with other troopers in a barracks, 15 days on, 15 days off.
"I had just come off turnpike duty when Bobby came in as a young recruit," Scott, now retired, says. "He was a big, tall, handsome, tough kid and very energetic. I made a lot of arrests as a trooper and I liked Bobby because he was a go-getter. I just took him under my wing and tried to teach him."
Much of their work dealt with domestic disputes, drunken drivers, bar fights and break-ins in six different townships. To stay in shape, Delaney worked as a referee at junior varsity and community basketball games. Three months into the job, Delaney experienced something that opened his eyes to a gut-wrenching facet of the work. He was called in to investigate the disappearance of a 16-year-old girl from her family's farm. He and Scott eventually discovered her sexually mutilated body - a crime later attributed to a man who had stopped to tell her one of her cows had gotten loose.
"For a 21-year-old kid, all of a sudden reality sets in," he says. "You realize there are some bad people in this world, and the bad can be really bad. So my understanding of victimology started at that point, and so did my understanding of bad guys."
A month later, another important lesson: He was called to investigate a break-in that occurred days after the homeowner was killed by a drunken driver. Delaney thought he had done a good job scrutinizing the scene, only to watch a senior detective find the case-breaking clue - paint chips on the fence that had been brushed by the getaway car. The thieves, having read the obituary, robbed the house during the funeral. "That reinforced how bad some people are," he says. "But it also reinforced to me the importance of attention to detail."
His big challenge came after one year on the job. The state police had joined forces with the FBI to embark on a six-month investigation of organized crime on the Jersey waterfront. Project Alpha would involve five undercover agents, three from the FBI, two from the state police.
Delaney was approached by a trooper sergeant, Jack Liddy. "He just walks over and says, 'You ever think of working undercover, I want to talk to you. If you ever tell anybody I'm talking to you, you won't have a shot at this job.' "
The young cop wanted in.
Attending your own funeral
A clandestine meeting at a diner followed, and soon the compe ion for one of the two trooper spots was heating up. And Delaney, with his poise, people skills and knowledge of the state, looked good.
There was one last step in the process, however: a meeting with the major in charge of the project. It was set for noon, but hours before the session, Liddy told Delaney it had been pushed to 2. So the sergeant took the candidate to lunch. "As soon as we hit the restaurant, Jack says, 'Whaddya want to do kid, eat it or drink it?' " Delaney recalls. "I say, 'Whatever you do boss.' So we go to the bar and he puts like three beers in me. And pretty soon, he says, 'Okay, let's go see the major.' "
Delaney had a fairly decent buzz on as he sat down for the meeting. It began badly. The major expressed concern that Delaney's father was a state police captain and there might be heat from the union if his son went undercover on a highly dangerous assignment.
"I got my back up a little," recalls Delaney. "I said, 'Excuse me sir, I've never asked for anything because my father is in the outfit, but I sure don't want to be held back because of it. If that's the case, maybe you're telling me I need to go find another job.' "
Delaney had passed the final exam he didn't even realize he was taking. The major liked the moxie the kid displayed in standing up to him. Further, Delaney learned that the meeting had been scheduled for 2 p.m. all along. His superiors just wanted to see how he would handle himself in a high-pressure situation under the influence of alcohol - a spot he would constantly find himself in with the mob.
Soon after, a car arrived in the middle of the night at the station house where Delaney and other troopers lived. He slipped out and left in the car, while another trooper went in and removed his uniforms. The next day, April 9, 1975, a personnel order was issued stating that Delaney had resigned.
Aside from those involved in Project Alpha, only Delaney's parents and sister knew the truth. His mentor and partner, Scott, had been away for the week and returned to the barracks to hear the stunning news. "Somebody said, 'Did you hear about Delaney?' " Scott recalls. "I said, 'No, what happened?' And they said that he and a buddy went to Florida and got arrested for murder. I could picture Bobby - he didn't take any s--- from anybody and maybe somebody gave him some. I felt really bad about it."
Other stories swirled: he'd gotten jammed up in a criminal investigation, he had smacked a woman around, he'd gotten into drugs confiscated on busts. His parents stopped going to state police functions because of all the whispering.
Scott talked it over with his wife, Fran. Though they had four small children and lived on a modest trooper's salary, they would offer all their savings to Delaney to help him out. Scott called Delaney's father. To his shock, Delaney answered.
"I thought he'd be in jail in Florida," he says. "But I told him I wanted to help him out, and that I'd go to Florida to serve as a character reference in court - even though that probably would have gotten me fired for breaking the state police rules."
To Scott's dismay, Delaney barely reacted.
"He just said, 'Okay, thanks a lot. I'll see you.' And he hung up," says Scott. "I had just offered him my life. I never heard from him. He never called back. And I never could figure it out."
For Delaney, having to stay mum with Scott was torture. He couldn't let him know that the offer of assistance had brought tears to his eyes.
"It was like being at your own funeral," he says. "Just like that, I was gone from the face of the earth."
-- Dave Scheiber can be reached at 727 893-8541 or [email protected].
>> Tomorrow: Into the shadows, onto the court
"He didn't take (bleep) from anybody. He was one of the refs that was marked who you couldn't talk (bleep) to. As a matter of fact, even if you raised your voice, he would turn around and look to give you a technical. He'd make a point to look back and see if you were going to try to argue or throw a fit. And because he always stayed like that, then you knew just not to do that."
Matt Geiger, former Philadelphia 76ers center, below
"I think he's tough, but fair. He's somebody you can talk to. He definitely draws the line when enough's enough. He doesn't hold grudges. He calls it like he sees it and if he thinks he misses a call, he says that. And the players respect that. But he's a no-nonsense guy, a guy who does a good job of controlling the game and ultimately lets the players play. I think once the story came out that he was an undercover police officer, he got a lot more respect. Everybody called him Donnie Brasco and things like that. But once you're in the heat of battle, you don't think about that stuff."
Grant Hill, Orlando Magic forward
"For a 21-year-old kid, all of a sudden reality sets in. You realize there are some bad people in this world, and the bad can be really bad. So my understanding of victimology started at that point, and so did my understanding of bad guys."
Bob Delaney
"He's a very tough ref; he doesn't take anything from anybody. He's a guy that when you go to him, you've got to go to him the right way. You just know that every time he comes in to ref a game, he is going to be fair. I respect him off the court for what he has done and what he did for his profession."
Dwyane Wade, Miami Heat guard
How many thread are you going to post this in, asshat?
it belongs with each topic I post it in
no one reads all the posts and it goes with that conversation.
Perhaps combine all the refs posts into one then.
Asshat? what is that? seriously asshat? im insulted.
oh this?
Thank you! I just had it stuffed.
I'm not sure what Bob Delaney's past as an undercover cop has to do with allegations that Tim Donaghy was affecting the scores of games. Yeah, Delaney busted mobsters, but are you trying to suggest that he might also be in on the same stuff that Donaghy was allegedly doing? I'd find it really hard to believe that Delaney would go from exposing mobsters as a cop to cooperating with them as an NBA official. As such, I'm not sure what Delaney's past has to do with this story.
FWD, I don't think you're getting the point. You can directly affect the outcome of a game without determining it. E.g. you could say that before Timmy got ejected, the Spurs had a good chance of winning, but after he was ejected, they had almost no chance. Right there, Crawford affected the outcome of the game without being the sole producing cause. Yes, the Spurs went minutes without a bucket, and yes, had they gotten hot they could have still overcome the hole that they dug for themselves (with Crawford handing them the shovel). But none of that changes the fact that a bull call probably changed the outcome of that game.No -- he didn't. If he directly affected the outcome of a game, then he would have ensured a particular result. That demonstrably isn't true of that game in Dallas. He didn't leave the Spurs without a chance; his decision undoubtedly made the Spurs' task more difficult, but that's very different than saying that he affected the outcome. If the Spurs had won that game -- and they should have even without Duncan -- you couldn't say that Crawford had affected the outcome.
Now, Crawford's situation is a lot different from Donaghy's. But the point is that a ref has the definite power to significantly impact the outcome of the game, even if he couldn't solely determine it. I disagree with people like LakerLanny et al who say that refs do this intentionally a lot, or even a little, but it does happen, and it really is kind of illogical to say that they couldn't and haven't. While I typically agree it's lame to blame the refs for your team losing, sometimes the refs really are to blame, even though the players are ultimately the ones making or missing the shots. For instance, a ref can put a team in a losing situation by making incorrect calls against a player putting him in foul trouble and relegating him to the bench. In such a situation, a team could still shoot 100% and overcome this disadvantage (because anything's possible), so the ref can't ensure that they're going to lose. But he can make it damn near impossible for them if he wanted.
We won't know if Donaghy did any of that type of for awhile. As far as we know, it was point-shaving, which isn't really a BFD to me. I mean, fire him, that's fine, but it's not like he was fixing outcomes (as far as we know). In that case, it only affects the gamblers, not the fans or the players, and I don't really have any mercy for gamblers being exploited. But then again, I think Pete Rose betting on his own team to win (if that's the full extent of it) is a non-issue. This is all just residual backlash from the Black Sox I think.
I get the point that GSH is trying to make. I just fundamentally disagree that any sort of affect that officials have on games is intentional -- and I don't think it ultimately determines the outcomes of games. Again, I think the Duncan-Crawford example is a horrendous one for your side of the argument, frankly, because it was clear to anyone who watched that the Spurs had wonderful opportunities to win that game without Duncan. What affected the outcome of the game was the Spurs' inability to score in the late parts of the game. Crawford created a potential excuse, but he didn't affect the outcome.
I'm glad you recognize that.
I'll concede that that is certainly a possibility in the abstract; I just don't see that it ever actually happens in the NBA.
Again, I don't see that officials are affecting outcomes except by doing what they think they're supposed to do under the rules. I suppose that Crawford is an example to the contrary in a sense, but we saw that the league punished him severely for acting beyond the rules in that instance.
Ultimately, officials are human -- they miss calls. I don't think that they miss calls intentionally and I don't think that they decide to favor one team over another or anything like that.
Absent clear proof that officials are manipulating outcomes, though, I'm not sure why my argument is the illogical one. I'm not the one who's inferring motive from acts that are readily explainable in neutral terms.
As long as the players are the ones taking and making shots, as long as they're the ones playing defense or not, as long as they're the ones rebounding or getting owned on the glass, I'm comfortable in my opinion that the players are the only thing deciding the game and in my refusal to ever blame officiating for losses (or crediting officiating for wins -- you have to admit that if you're going to blame officiating for losses then you must also credit officiating for certain wins; it can't always go one way, logically, eh?)
Sure, that's possible. But if the player is putting himself into position where officials are dealing with close calls and might miss them, isn't the player at least partially at fault for his plight and its affect on his team? I would think so.
I don't see officials frequently making calls against players -- particularly against difference-making players -- when that player is completely away from the play. I'd be interested in examples of that phenomenon.
See, I think Donaghy's misconduct is the biggest story in sports right now because, unlike all of the other conjuecture that you're offering me, it's (seemingly) concrete proof of an official affecting the integrity of the game -- the first proof that I'm aware of.
I think it goes deeper than just affecting gamblers, specifically because it leads to discussions like this one in which my argument that officials aren't corrupt is the minority viewpoint.
It's different to say that refs are intentionally effecting the outcome of the game and refs are directly effecting the outcome of the game. You claimed originally that refs don't directly effect the outcome of the game, and I think that's illogical. Whether or not they have that effect intentionally is obviously a different matter, and Crawford and Donaghy show that some in fact do. In Crawford's case, it was pretty clear he had a personal score to settle with Tim and intentionally found fault with otherwise unobjectionable conduct in order to eject him. With Donaghy (if this turns out to be true), he's intentionally making incorrect calls to determine whether or not a team covers the spread.
As for the Dallas game, while opportunities to win a game are ALWAYS there, the Spurs, without Duncan, are a mess. You know that, everyone knows that...that's why he's the best PF of all time, because he's the "cornerstone of the team" and "makes everyone around him better" and all the other people say about him. While I think the Spurs could have won that game without him (just like ANY team can win ANY game on ANY given night), it's completely ridiculous to say they weren't at a severe disadvantage. And acknowledging that fact, it's not unfair to also conjecture that had Duncan been there and the rest of the team had played exactly the same way as they had without him, the Spurs would have won. So, you see, Crawford's decision potentially had a direct and material impact on the game; but for his egregious conduct, the Spurs would have won the game. In other words, even if the rest of the Spurs had experienced that same scoring drought that you say was the real reason they lost the game, with Duncan on the floor to get stops and scores, that drought wouldn't have mattered. You can't fault the players for not playing above the level they would have ordinarily played at when their key difference-maker is ejected for an admittedly bull reason. And you can't exonerate Crawford because the Spurs didn't do better than they ordinarily would have in order to overcome the fault of a referee.
I hear your point that great teams learn to play past the refs...that's a true statement. But I don't think the Spurs this year were that kind of "great" team, and I don't think we've seen a "great" team that can play past the refs since, well , maybe the '95 Rockets. And I don't think that the horrible negligence of the refs should be excused by saying "this team deserves what they get because they weren't talented enough to win despite the refs ing them."
I know you keep closer tabs on the refs that anyone else here, and I know that despite your intimate knowledge you think they're right on most of the time. I'm not going to challenge your assessment of the general temper of the refs because I also think that generally, they're fairly decent. But there are some individuals (not just Donaghy and Crawford) who just aren't very good at their job, at least if their job is making accurate calls. If their job is something else (as Bavetta seems to think it is), then maybe they're succeeding.
Well, now we've got an example of a ref missing calls intentionally. I don't see how you can watch any game that Bavetta calls and think he doesn't favor certain team (home or away for example) in certain situations. I mean, seriously, are you just saying this because you don't want to sound like some whiny Suns fan who blames the failure of his team on extrinsic forces? If that's what it is, I commend you, because Suns fans blow, but you still have to be open to the possibility that sometimes, the refs do the Spurs.
And BTW, it doesn't have to be conscious to be intentional. At the risk of sounding like LakerLanny, it's very reasonable to say that in the back of every referee's mind is the fact that when the NBA makes more money, they make more money. And it's no mystery what makes the most money for the NBA: superstars doing amazing things in big games. Even if Crawford (for example) isn't going out there thinking "I'm going to let Dwayne Wade travel to his heart's content and every time his misses a shot, I'm going to call a late foul," it doesn't mean he isn't being controlled by his subconscious desire to be a part of a memorable, exciting game, and to reap the benefits of the league making more money as a result of the occurrence of memorable, exciting games. Or perhaps these junior refs know that they are the first to go if the NBA starts losing money and cuts back on staff.
Crawford and Donaghy's acts can be explained in neutral terms? Let's see you try.
Tons of people have thought the NBA officials were corrupt for years. This Donaghy revelation is only slight confirmation of something that lots of people have felt for a very long time...something is rotten in Denmark. I don't know what, but it wouldn't surprise me if Donaghy isn't the only one.
(I haven't read the whole thread so pardon me if this has been brought up.)
In the 'old' days when the NBA was a very junior league in terms of money, the fans and sportswriters marveled at how bad teams were able to stretch the elite teams to seven games in almost every series.
The implied--and sometimes outright allegation--was that the refs stretched the limits and influenced the outcome because they got paid by how many games they refereed.
I think the league finally ended that practice and increasing the income of the refs helped too. But the possibility of influencing the point spread is real and relatively easy to do.
Therefore su ions arise when certain things in control of the refs such as fouls appear to be out of the norm. I remember two playoff games which Spurs fans thought they got jobbed. One was a Laker game where we got 24 fouls to something like 2 for the Lakers in the first half and the game was lost after that. The second was the foul in the last seconds against Washington when the Spurs were on the verge of becoming the first ABA team going to the Finals.
So then tell me, conqueso, which games did officials give to the Spurs last season. If they affect the outcomes, surely they're not just affecting outcomes negatively for the Spurs. That would be illogical. So, again, tell me in which games the officials benefitted the Spurs. After all, for every team that's screwed over by officials who are affecting outcomes, there has to be a team that benefits.
Like the Tarheels??
The WWF is fake!!!
FWIW, on ESPN they reported that more arrests were expected and there is a possibility that Donaghy will cooperate with the feds and implicate other referees. Referees do affect the outcome of games regardless of what FWD says.
can we have one on who all thinks this scandal stops with just the one ref as far as it relates to the nba (i'm sure a number of mob crooks will be brought in)?
And on KENS TV news sports they said the same thing as ESPN (Donaghys' cooperation with Feds to implicate more Refs) plus impicating some players as well.
It makes you wonder how long this has been going on.
And it makes you wonder if the Spurs might have well won more les over the years!
Last edited by xmas1997; 07-22-2007 at 08:37 PM.
It's over Johnny.
And wouldn't it just be rich if one of the players allegedly involved was a Sun? You would see some furious backpedaling here by many of our trolls; either that or deathly silence.
EG why did Amare play so stupidly in the series? Because he was on the take throwing games.
This could quickly spiral into a "witch hunt" catagory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stern's going to have a heart attack!
Tim Donaghy, can you spell "witness protection"????????????
Last edited by xmas1997; 07-22-2007 at 08:51 PM.
Howabout we just ban anyone who starts another referee/gambling thread instead...
or anyone responding to one only to complain about another one existing?
BS on the talk about exposing other Refs, too many peep hear about "other arrests" and assume they are NBA refs or players when it is most likely bookies and mobsters they are talking about.
I do think Donaghy will get a slap on the wrist, assuming he is turning witness.
WPP for Donaghy
That might be true, but he's also going to have to assume a new iden y and move to some locale selected by the federal government; you'd better believe that if he rats out mobsters, he's going to be a marked man.
It would be hard for him to hide, he could become one of the most hated men in the country, besides, what about delaney?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
