More Donaghy -- Alleging NBA Fixed Game 6 Series in 2002?
- Thread starter DirtyAcres
- Start date
- Status
Why? Even if Donaghy's allegations were somehow proven, it wasn't the NBA finals. So how do the Kings deserve the Championship banner?
Um...please. That WAS the NBA Finals, and everybody knew it. Tehre was only one conference that year, and a team that won 50 games waiting to get spanked by the winner of the WCF. Which they did BTW (swept 4-0).
On ESPN Radio (Sirius Satellite ch-20) this morning, this subject was again brought up, this time relating to the current playoff series Lakers-Celtics. Then it got into the Donaghy situation and specifically back to the game 6 of the 2002 conf finals Lakers-Kings. Part of his on-air discussion went to how refs, like players, get influenced by fan reaction plus, in game 6 case, the big, star studded environment of LA LA Land.
I believe the refs that night (game 6) were, consciously or sub-consciously, influenced by the overall environment and wanted to be with it, not against it. The Lakers obviously were not the best team in 6 or 7, but then again the Kings were their own worst enemy in Game 7, missing 14 FTs!!! Could the refs have made a conscious effort to give more fouls to the "cow bell ringing, almond growing" Sactown Kings? Maybe on occasion but not through the game.
Also the attitude of players, specifically Pollard and Vlade in game 6, could go against their chance to get an even break on fouls. It was Shaq after all and he got fouled constantly in those days. Some nights they called them all, some nights not. Game 6 was a night they called them all, questionable ones, blatantly bad ones and legit ones.
Sure someone in the official/executive ranks could have said something that was interpreted as favoring the Lakers. We'll probably never know. But we do know, the Kings got screwed by the calls in that fateful game 6.
I believe the refs that night (game 6) were, consciously or sub-consciously, influenced by the overall environment and wanted to be with it, not against it. The Lakers obviously were not the best team in 6 or 7, but then again the Kings were their own worst enemy in Game 7, missing 14 FTs!!! Could the refs have made a conscious effort to give more fouls to the "cow bell ringing, almond growing" Sactown Kings? Maybe on occasion but not through the game.
Also the attitude of players, specifically Pollard and Vlade in game 6, could go against their chance to get an even break on fouls. It was Shaq after all and he got fouled constantly in those days. Some nights they called them all, some nights not. Game 6 was a night they called them all, questionable ones, blatantly bad ones and legit ones.
Sure someone in the official/executive ranks could have said something that was interpreted as favoring the Lakers. We'll probably never know. But we do know, the Kings got screwed by the calls in that fateful game 6.
Then you probably are just not a very good liar. (but hey, a good thing right?)
Trust me when I say this with a certain amount of professional aplomb: the key to a good lie is never leaving anything out there you can get tripped up on. Or at least one of the keys (another is build the lie out of stuff you already know/have experienced so you can slip in realism + details). If Donaghy was lying, the LAST thing he would want to do is to get too specific. Because at some point that can be disproven. But now, keep it vague, play upon the prejudices that game already has attached to it, adn you can say very little and jsut let people run wild wiht by themselves. Everybody is already primed to believe. And hopefully for you they do. But if they do not and call you onit, you can just go back and point to your vague statements and say "see? I didn't say that/lie to you."
(but hey, a good thing right?)Trust me when I say this with a certain amount of professional aplomb: the key to a good lie is never leaving anything out there you can get tripped up on. Or at least one of the keys (another is build the lie out of stuff you already know/have experienced so you can slip in realism + details). If Donaghy was lying, the LAST thing he would want to do is to get too specific. Because at some point that can be disproven. But now, keep it vague, play upon the prejudices that game already has attached to it, adn you can say very little and jsut let people run wild wiht by themselves. Everybody is already primed to believe. And hopefully for you they do. But if they do not and call you onit, you can just go back and point to your vague statements and say "see? I didn't say that/lie to you."
In this scenario the defendant is trying to establish that his pattern of behavior is not uncommon. Sometimes we're so caught up with the referee thing that we lose sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture is Donaghy is NOT charged with favoring teams or interfering with the games' outcome. He is charged with wired fraud and gambling illegalities. To save his *** and to establish a pattern of behavior within the NBA, he must connect some form of wired fraud and/or gambling to other referees.
And quite frankly, while some of his accusations sound bad, there's not one ioda about wired fraud or gambling. In turn, it's almost useless in his defense. To say that he lied means he lied about something that doesn't really help him. My point is, if he is going to lie, common sense dictates he should lie about something that actaully will help his case.
Unless of course, he is waging his battle in the court of public opinion instead of the court of law. In which case, he needs a better attorney. Like Chris Rock said, "I'd rather look guilty at the mall than innocent in prison!"
Its about perception. When Shaq plays a game in his prime taking only one free throw attempt all game and fouls out, even if it was against the mighty Vlade Divac and Scott Polard is kind of strange. Add to that the out of bounds play (if it was today maybe the league would come out and say they made a mistake) given to the kings, an illegal screen to free up bibby and to cap it all off bobby pulling down Bryants trousers as he goes for the final shot to win the game.
Its all about perception, kings fans have a legitimate beef about game 6, lakers fans have a legitimate beef about game 5. Its just not as sour for the lakers fans since they won the series and it doesnt linger as long.
Its all about perception, kings fans have a legitimate beef about game 6, lakers fans have a legitimate beef about game 5. Its just not as sour for the lakers fans since they won the series and it doesnt linger as long.
I think you are misinterpreting where Donaghy stands at the moment -- he is guilty. There is nothing he can do about that. He is about to be sentenced -- this whole thing came up through a letter to the judge asking for leniency in sentencing. What he is trying to do is convince the feds that he is a) useful; and b) has been super-duper cooperative, and that therefore he deserves a break for being a nice little pigeon. The feds then say to the judge, he's been super-duper cooperative, give him a break. And if the judge goes along with it, the sentence gets reduced. Donaghy doesn't have to prove anything regarding wire fraud or anything else amongst other refs (although that would obviously be useful). All he has to do is convince the feds to ask the judge to be lenient on him. Its the legal world, but it still comes down to a personal level. He needs a friend.
Now obviously the more detail, the closer to home he is able to get with an accusation, the more value it is to him in those efforts. But ANYTHING he can throw out there that sounds remotely plausible and cannot come back to bite him as an obvious lie might be of value. He is singing as loud as he can -- you just don't know if the lyrics have any basis in truth. Throw in the vengeance factor -- the timing here seems an obvious response to the league going after him for monetary compensation -- and he's got plenty of reasons to lie, exaggerate, whatever it takes.
Now obviously the more detail, the closer to home he is able to get with an accusation, the more value it is to him in those efforts. But ANYTHING he can throw out there that sounds remotely plausible and cannot come back to bite him as an obvious lie might be of value. He is singing as loud as he can -- you just don't know if the lyrics have any basis in truth. Throw in the vengeance factor -- the timing here seems an obvious response to the league going after him for monetary compensation -- and he's got plenty of reasons to lie, exaggerate, whatever it takes.
But there is a difference... a major difference. Game 5 was like many other games in the playoffs at that time. The officiating favored the Kings, but it wasn't egregious. It wasn't blatant. I don't believe it was a conscious decision to decide the outcome of the game.
Game 6 on the other hand was egregious. It was blatant. If the Kings had won the series game 6 would still be talked about much more than game 5. There may be legitimate beefs on both sides, but one is a petite filet and the other is the whole cow.
Game 6 on the other hand was egregious. It was blatant. If the Kings had won the series game 6 would still be talked about much more than game 5. There may be legitimate beefs on both sides, but one is a petite filet and the other is the whole cow.
that HURTS so bad
realistically, that year proved to be the one year the kings really had a shot at a title, and to hear the league conspired to take it away from the kings, man that hurts.
i hope they strip it from the lakers. obviously they wouldn't be able to give it outright to the kings ( even though the kings probably would have beaten the nets, thats no guarantee) and just have a title-less year. the lakers should not be rewarded if in fact the refs conspired to force a game 7.
i kind of had this feeling all along, i'm so hurt and offended now that light is being shed to prove the fact. we got screwed.
realistically, that year proved to be the one year the kings really had a shot at a title, and to hear the league conspired to take it away from the kings, man that hurts.
i hope they strip it from the lakers. obviously they wouldn't be able to give it outright to the kings ( even though the kings probably would have beaten the nets, thats no guarantee) and just have a title-less year. the lakers should not be rewarded if in fact the refs conspired to force a game 7.
i kind of had this feeling all along, i'm so hurt and offended now that light is being shed to prove the fact. we got screwed.
Kings fans have legitimate beef about games 4 & 6. Lakers won game 4 by one point. Samaki Walker's 3-pointer at half-time was blatantly after the buzzer and should have been a no-basket. Hence the institution of the instant replay at the end of quarters is traced back to that shot.
And I don't think you can even compare game 5 to game 6. How many unbiased people considered game 5 to be one of the worst officated games ever?
(Yes Shaq was fouled a lot in general, in all games, and didn't get calls. He also fouled other players a lot and those weren't called either.)
And I don't think you can even compare game 5 to game 6. How many unbiased people considered game 5 to be one of the worst officated games ever?
(Yes Shaq was fouled a lot in general, in all games, and didn't get calls. He also fouled other players a lot and those weren't called either.)
Yes, its still hurts. Its so hard to get such a good team together to actually make it to the WC-finals. For the games to be fixed is just a shame.
What else is new with professional sports? It happens with soccer in Europe, cheating with baseball and the NBA is just known for the refs doing the work.
David Stern is just going to do the usual deny and pin everything on Donaghy thing. Saying he can't be trusted. But what about the Brian McNamee dude? He did things wrong too but a lot of people seem to believe him over Clemens. Thats because where things make sense it makes sense.
I'm sure most of you know about this, but just to refresh things. The Game 6 was something even Ralphe Nader (consumer rights leader) had a problem with.
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2002/s/2002/0605/1390908.html
BONUS
Kobe being the good teammate that he is during Gm2 vs Boston when they were getting pounded by Celtics by 22pts.
What else is new with professional sports? It happens with soccer in Europe, cheating with baseball and the NBA is just known for the refs doing the work.
David Stern is just going to do the usual deny and pin everything on Donaghy thing. Saying he can't be trusted. But what about the Brian McNamee dude? He did things wrong too but a lot of people seem to believe him over Clemens. Thats because where things make sense it makes sense.
I'm sure most of you know about this, but just to refresh things. The Game 6 was something even Ralphe Nader (consumer rights leader) had a problem with.
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2002/s/2002/0605/1390908.html
BONUS
Kobe being the good teammate that he is during Gm2 vs Boston when they were getting pounded by Celtics by 22pts.
A difference there is that McNamee was actually the a party to Clemens' doping. He was the guy who gave it to him, and I think I recall may even have injected him.
If Donaghy were actually one of the refs in that 2002 series and he said "yep, I cheated the Kings in Game 6", well that would be explosive. The difficulty here is that he wasn't, and so we have him claiming it from the sidelines. Its an extra degree of separation that makes this eyebrow raising, but still with considerable uncertainty.
If Donaghy were actually one of the refs in that 2002 series and he said "yep, I cheated the Kings in Game 6", well that would be explosive. The difficulty here is that he wasn't, and so we have him claiming it from the sidelines. Its an extra degree of separation that makes this eyebrow raising, but still with considerable uncertainty.
Brick, you just repeated bascially what I said. Donaghy is trying to convince a judge, not a jury, in his sentencing. While sometimes you can play demogauge and sway a jury, that won't fly with a judge. He wants the judge to think he's being cooperative and he also wants the judge to think his illegal failings is not uncommon among referees. Now, the judge is going to sentence on exactly what he is guilty of: wired fraud and tranferring gambling illegalities across state line.
You have to think in legal manuver and in Donaghy's perspective; having the feds on his side is certainly useful, but in addition, the closer he can link other refs to wired fraud and gambling, the likier that he can convince the judge that he is a moral being corrupted by the system. The point of ratting out other refs is to show that he is not the only one and hopefully looks less guilty in the process.
Now, let's say Donaghy never heard anything about the 2002 playoff but he is just going to make something up to save his behind. He knows he's lying and he knows he's taking a big risk in doing so. He could have easily said, "I heard of other refs who betted on games, but I don't know which game, how many games and I don't know who are their bookies." Viola! It's vague, it's hard to prove, it links directly to gambling, and he can always go back and say, "Well, that's what I heard anyway. Maybe I'm mistaken."
But instead, he made up a lie that has nothing to do with wired fraud or gambling? If you're going to lie, it has got to be on point. The judge is just going to say to Donaghy, "So? The refs fixing game is NBA's problem. Your problem is wired fraud and other federal crimes."
Brick, you talked about a lie has to be not very specific, well two refs fixing a 2002 playoff game under order from the league IS very specific. If Donaghy is lying, this lie doesn't help him and he opens himself for attacks and perhaps lawsuits from the NBA.
You have to think in legal manuver and in Donaghy's perspective; having the feds on his side is certainly useful, but in addition, the closer he can link other refs to wired fraud and gambling, the likier that he can convince the judge that he is a moral being corrupted by the system. The point of ratting out other refs is to show that he is not the only one and hopefully looks less guilty in the process.
Now, let's say Donaghy never heard anything about the 2002 playoff but he is just going to make something up to save his behind. He knows he's lying and he knows he's taking a big risk in doing so. He could have easily said, "I heard of other refs who betted on games, but I don't know which game, how many games and I don't know who are their bookies." Viola! It's vague, it's hard to prove, it links directly to gambling, and he can always go back and say, "Well, that's what I heard anyway. Maybe I'm mistaken."
But instead, he made up a lie that has nothing to do with wired fraud or gambling? If you're going to lie, it has got to be on point. The judge is just going to say to Donaghy, "So? The refs fixing game is NBA's problem. Your problem is wired fraud and other federal crimes."
Brick, you talked about a lie has to be not very specific, well two refs fixing a 2002 playoff game under order from the league IS very specific. If Donaghy is lying, this lie doesn't help him and he opens himself for attacks and perhaps lawsuits from the NBA.
Save it.
That like saying that it's your fault your car got stolen because you didn't have an alarm. Bottom line is that the series should have been over in Game 6, and Game 7 wouldn't have existed.
At home in Arco is irrelevant. We should have been getting ready for the Nets, not playing an elimination game.
That like saying that it's your fault your car got stolen because you didn't have an alarm. Bottom line is that the series should have been over in Game 6, and Game 7 wouldn't have existed.
At home in Arco is irrelevant. We should have been getting ready for the Nets, not playing an elimination game.
Fact is the NBA makes a spreadsheet for the revenues from every playoff series. The numbers for a 7th game in the 2002 WCF had to be damn tempting.
LA is a huge market. Sacramento is small. What could Sac do if they got screwed out of a game? Nothing, as we've seen.
Of course the fix was in on Game 6, and of course the NBA was OK with it, otherwise those refs would have been fired. That officiating at that game was beyond the pale, and you didn't need a statistician to figure it out, which is how they caught Donaghy.
LA is a huge market. Sacramento is small. What could Sac do if they got screwed out of a game? Nothing, as we've seen.
Of course the fix was in on Game 6, and of course the NBA was OK with it, otherwise those refs would have been fired. That officiating at that game was beyond the pale, and you didn't need a statistician to figure it out, which is how they caught Donaghy.
We don't have a beef about Game 4, not unless it's with the players. We blew a 20 point second half lead to lose that game. I think you have to look at that before you look at Samaki Walker's three pointer. Yeah we only lost by a point, but we're talking about two quarters left to play. We didn't lose because of a bogus three pointer. We lost because we didn't close the Lakers out.
Game 5 had some bad calls in it as well, but Game 6 stands on its own. No comparison.
Game 5 had some bad calls in it as well, but Game 6 stands on its own. No comparison.
No, if its a lie its brilliance is precisely in what he did NOT say. He was apparently careful not to claim the league ordered it. Instead saying they were "well known company men" or whatever. Its all implied. The only part he did say was that Refereee A told me such and such. And that's one of those things where of course Referee A is going to say he did not -- no way for it to bite Donaghy. He just says, well I'm tellling the truth and he's lying. No way to prove that Donaghy was lying -- that's the nastiness of that sort of accusation. Its he said/she said. Basically he provides not one verifiable fact that can be checked and found wanting. He's got the entire mythos of that awfully reffed game on his side, and all he adds is a "the guy said he did it". Nothing to get called on. But a big juicy implication for an ambitious prosector to mull over.
He's not actually trying to prove a case here, whetehr the accusation is true or not. He's just tying to buy some good will by spilling anything and everything. The very part that makes it suspsicious is the same part that has created so much buzz -- he chose an extremely well known and oft discussed event and basically tells them/impies exactly what everybody always thought about it anyway. There would be less reason to doubt him if it was an obscure game/series somewhere.
- Status