More Donaghy -- Alleging NBA Fixed Game 6 Series in 2002?

[beb0p]

I think it was the reverse. Per my understanding, he made these allegations after NBA demanded $1M from him.

This is not to say that they are wrong, or that he wouldn't have made them otherwise. Just that, per my understanding, that was the sequence.

Actually Donaghy made the allegations earlier, keeping it as vague and obsure as possible (like Brick suggested), the NBA didn't like it and demands $1 millions from him.

After the NBA made its move, Donaghy spilled more beans, this time with more specifics, including pinpointing the 2002 playoff game that two "company men" fixed the result.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Maloof's issue statement saying no NBA conspiracy

http://cbs13.com/sports/Maloofs.NBA.Kings.2.747187.html

 

[bozzwell]

http://cbs13.com/sports/Maloofs.NBA.Kings.2.747187.html

I don't believe them. If it is proven that there is fix in with even just a tacit approval from above, NBA would be in such a mess that they would never get a new arena and value of their franchise would collapse. At least temporarily. So, asking any owner, save for Cuban (and I am starting to like the fact that Cuban is an NBA owner even if i don't like the man) is like asking Stern.

As an interesting side-note, couple months ago on the way from work I was listening to a local ESPN radio show with Jerry Reinsdorf as a special guest. He spoke mostly about his MLB team (White Sox) but they did some NBA talk around Bulls coach search. When the name of David Stern came up, Jerry quite seriously said that David Stern is his (Reinsdorf's) boss when it comes to the NBA. In the MLB owners are ultimate bosses and comish answers to them. In the NBA, Stern tells them (Reinsdorf's words) what's going on and what's going to be. Basically, Stern has build this league up from a minor sport to a world wide phenomenon and many, many things are sacraficed for the "greater good" (Sonics, constant rule changes and new directives to referees , Charlotte franchises etc.).

I think that Stern's dictatorial ways have outlived its usefulness and dude has seriously outstayed his welcome. I don't really care whether 2 refs fixed 2002 playoffs or everything is just a consequence of predominant culture in the NBA that favors home teams and superstars like Kobe, Shaq and PJ, we should have won that series in Game 6.

Stern should also realize that the casual fan, the fan that makes the fat profit for NBA by tuning in to watch superstars and bring in extra bucks will just _assume_ that the fix was in even if they never saw the game. It's gonna be like an urban legend, self-perpetuating and will outlive Donaghy case by decades.

 

[ParniValjak]

You couldn't have expected them to say anything else really. They wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of David Stern with all the arena issues still out there. They are threading softly and rightly so.

Us fans on the other hand can go on a rampage

 

[Aenadin]

yay rampage!!! i think this is the turning point in the franchise... maloofs said anything about this? this allegation?

 

[DocHolliday]

During game 4 a statement from the Maloofs was discussed. This isn't word for word, but basically they said:

We have been affilliated with the NBA for quite some time now. While we were not happy with every call in Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, we do not believe that the NBA conspired against us.

Basically they are towing the corporate line. It's in their best interest. Even if they believe it might be possible after hearing the allegations, they would say what they said.

 

[Bricklayer]

During game 4 a statement from the Maloofs was discussed. This isn't word for word, but basically they said:

We have been affilliated with the NBA for quite some time now. While we were not happy with every call in Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals, we do not believe that the NBA conspired against us.

Basically they are towing the corporate line. It's in their best interest. Even if they believe it might be possible after hearing the allegations, they would say what they said.

Yeah there's a copy of it up at the Bee.

Really almost no story, because while they may in fact believe it, its also what they would have to say even if they didn't.

 

[uolj]

People are fundamentally underestimating the temptation to lie in Donaghy's position. This is a matter of his freedom. And the feds are going to put pressure on you to spill and spill some more. And when you run out of the good stuff, the real stuff, and they still want more...what do you do? You lie. Something nice, convenient, already suspected, uncheckable. You tell them exactly what they waant to hear so that they will cut you a break. It is a very old story in the criminal justice system.

I guess I just disagree. When they ask for stuff, and there is stuff (which we know there was), then you don't make up more stuff. You just tell the truth. Why risk it? In fact, not only do you tell the truth, you don't embellish it, even a smidgen. One tiny little thing proven false and your lighter sentence turns into the maximum.

 

[Bricklayer]

I guess I just disagree. When they ask for stuff, and there is stuff (which we know there was), then you don't make up more stuff. You just tell the truth. Why risk it? In fact, not only do you tell the truth, you don't embellish it, even a smidgen. One tiny little thing proven false and your lighter sentence turns into the maximum.

Again -- there is nothing to prove wrong. It is a perfect lie (if it is) in that regard. Everybody is already inclined to believe you, and its completely impossible to put the lie to it. The other refs will deny it, you say they are lying, that's it. He never gave them anything to go on that they could check to find him wrong. He never said there was a memo, or a directive, or a meeting, or anything else (notably different from the Houston icnident which he clearly knew about). Just so and so told me. Well so and so says he did not. And that's as far as anybody can check.

I am always suspicious when somebody tells me exactly what I want to hear. I am even more suspscious when there is advantage in it for them. And even more suspicious when they have an axe to grind and are going to jail for being a lying weasel in the first place. They might still be telling you the truth, but there are red flags all over the place.

 

[quick dog]

As I said before, the truth about many issues is clouded by political correctness, politeness, and complex business decisions that are predicated on making money, not necessarily telling the truth or getting even. The Maloofs are lying, just like responsible business men sometimes have to do to stay in business. Then again there is Mark Cuban.

 

[Bricklayer]

For those that did not see it, Mark Cuban publicly came to the defense of David Stern on this issue, saying he could not beleive that Stern would ever order a game manipulated.

Now that of course could be him protecting his business interests. Or him reluctant to say too much given that his team was the beneficiary in the Houston incident. but it could also just be him straight shooting about his read on the man. Cuban and Stern have fought like cats and dogs, but perhaps his problem really is more with the refs than Stern after all.

 

[uolj]

Again -- there is nothing to prove wrong. It is a perfect lie (if it is) in that regard. Everybody is already inclined to believe you, and its completely impossible to put the lie to it. The other refs will deny it, you say they are lying, that's it. He never gave them anything to go on that they could check to find him wrong. He never said there was a memo, or a directive, or a meeting, or anything else (notably different from the Houston icnident which he clearly knew about). Just so and so told me. Well so and so says he did not. And that's as far as anybody can check.

I am always suspicious when somebody tells me exactly what I want to hear. I am even more suspscious when there is advantage in it for them. And even more suspicious when they have an axe to grind and are going to jail for being a lying weasel in the first place. They might still be telling you the truth, but there are red flags all over the place.

Sorry, but it really sounds like you're grasping at straws.

It makes no sense to even take the chance. If there is anything else in the story that was a lie, if he didn't admit involvement in the original charge immediately when confronted, if he did anything to make you think he was deliberately hiding stuff from you, then perhaps you are suspicious. But he didn't do any of that (to our knowledge). Even if he did, you still would have to say it's more likely than not that he's telling the truth.

I'm not saying it's absolute that he's not lying. Anything's possible. I'm saying that it's highly unlikely given what else we know. It just does not make sense.

 

[VF21]

I still don't think Stern is behind it, but I think Bernhardt is retired for a reason that Stern DID know about and I think Donaghy was trying to mask Bernhardt's involvement by making it "two company men" instead of one official...

 

[uolj]

For those that did not see it, Mark Cuban publicly came to the defense of David Stern on this issue, saying he could not beleive that Stern would ever order a game manipulated.

Now that of course could be him protecting his business interests. Or him reluctant to say too much given that his team was the beneficiary in the Houston incident. but it could also just be him straight shooting about his read on the man. Cuban and Stern have fought like cats and dogs, but perhaps his problem really is more with the refs than Stern after all.

Of course the Maloofs, Cuban, and almost everybody else in the NBA is going to say that Stern didn't order the manipulation. Who cares? It is highly unlikely that is what happened anyway.

That doesn't mean Stern's not guilty of creating the atmosphere in which officials change the way they call games based on outside circumstances.

 

[quick dog]

Stern has plausible deniability. If he set the whole thing up, he did so at arms-length. Stern, Cuban, and the Maloofs are not stupid men. Cuban is probably lying. More than anyone else, he has lost a lot of money stating his opinions regarding the nature of NBA management and officiating.

 

[Bricklayer]

It just does not make sense.

You keep on saying that, and its a curious conclusion.

You are up for 25 years in prison. Feds say help us or we ask the judge to throw the book at you. You buckle and say ok ok, I know about this thing in Houston. Feds say, ok, give us more. You say..uh...they used to tell us not to throw out stars. Feds say, come on, if you don't start spilling everything you know, we aren't helping you. And so you start throwing out anything that you think might stick, anything to make them happy. Stern, a lawyer himself, was right about this being Donaghy "singing". The problem is that we do NOT know whether he really had anything to sing about, or whether he knew that if he did not come up with something, he was going to jail for a long time.

He tagged a public incident. His source is dubious -- why oh why would another ref tell him that he meant to cheat? He wasn't there at the incident. He provides no details that you or I could not have provided. And he only has a handful of incidents to report. If he had 20 incidents, there would be no reason to add a 21st. But he only has 2 or 3, and none that really raises to the level of dishonest conduct.

And this exact dynamic happens all the time in the law. All the time. A drug dealer is brought in. You lean on him. Maybe he gives up a small fry. You lean on him some more. He tries to comply by giving you the names you want. But does he actually know those names? Or does he actually just know that you want them? There are a lot of bad cases that turn upon this very dynamic. The fine line between getting everything out of somebody that they know, and in going beyond that and starting to get lies and exaggerations and hearsay mixed in as well.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I am always suspicious when somebody tells me exactly what I want to hear. I am even more suspscious when there is advantage in it for them. And even more suspicious when they have an axe to grind and are going to jail for being a lying weasel in the first place. They might still be telling you the truth, but there are red flags all over the place.

This summarizes my feelings quite nicely.

 

[uolj]

You keep on saying that, and its a curious conclusion.

You are up for 25 years in prison. Feds say help us or we ask the judge to throw the book at you. You buckle and say ok ok, I know about this thing in Houston. Feds say, ok, give us more. You say..uh...they used to tell us not to throw out stars. Feds say, come on, if you don't start spilling everything you know, we aren't helping you. And so you start throwing out anything that you think might stick, anything to make them happy. Stern, a lawyer himself, was right about this being Donaghy "singing". The problem is that we do NOT know whether he really had anything to sing about, or whether he knew that if he did not come up with something, he was going to jail for a long time.

He tagged a public incident. His source is dubious -- why oh why would another ref tell him that he meant to cheat? He wasn't there at the incident. He provides no details that you or I could not have provided. And he only has a handful of incidents to report. If he had 20 incidents, there would be no reason to add a 21st. But he only has 2 or 3, and none that really raises to the level of dishonest conduct.

And this exact dynamic happens all the time in the law. All the time. A drug dealer is brought in. You lean on him. Maybe he gives up a small fry. You lean on him some more. He tries to comply by giving you the names you want. But does he actually know those names? Or does he actually just know that you want them? There are a lot of bad cases that turn upon this very dynamic. The fine line between getting everything out of somebody that they know, and in going beyond that and starting to get lies and exaggerations and hearsay mixed in as well.

But the feds didn't even investigate the 2002 game. The ones they investigated they found Donaghy to be truthful about. You're saying he may have been pressured to give more and more and so he gave them something that wasn't entirely truthful to satisfy them. If that was the case, why would he lie about something that they didn't even care about or persue? If you're going to take the chance of lying to give them what they want, you probably better give them what they want.

By the way, he had more than a handful if memory serves. The letter merely mentioned a couple and I believe it said that they were just examples.

I have no doubt that stuff happens all the time. But it doesn't fit here.

 

[FakeInjury]

Everyone needs to understand that his story is true(imo). To what extent is it true is the question that needs to be answered. If it involved just refs or did the leauge have in on it. I think it was the refs, and they were paid by the Buss family(indirectly) and placed bets to double up thier profits. Who wouldn't take 100k just to do thier job poorly. I like the curruption, it adds another dimension to the game.

 

[TheFifthMookie]

Why is everyone treating what Donaghy says as fact?

Because we watched the game.

I felt it was true before Donaghy started talking. The NBA will need to completely change the way the referee games and oversee refereeing before I will be a serious fan again. I'm having real trouble watching any of the finals because I'm so disillusioned.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Everyone needs to understand that his story is true(imo).

I understand that the story is true, in your opinion. I do not understand Donaghy's story to be true in any other respect.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Because we watched the game.

OR he watched the game too and he just decided to fill in the blanks with a fictional story.

 

[BMiller52]

OR he watched the game too and he just decided to fill in the blanks with a fictional story.

SMH.

Is the FBI investigating Donaghy's allegations? Will others be charged with crimes?

The FBI already has investigated the allegations. Donaghy first met with FBI agents in July 2007. A team of agents has been probing his stories ever since. As the result of their investigations, federal prosecutors have filed what is known as a 5(k) letter. The 5(k) letter means the agents have checked on the stories and have concluded Donaghy was truthful. The 5(k) letter does not apply to the 2002 Western Conference finals Game 6 because the statute of limitations had expired. More than five years went by before Donaghy described that game to any agents. There was no reason to look into that game because no one could be charged with a crime. The 5(k) letter does apply to statements Donaghy made to agents regarding the three games in 2005. The information could result in a reduction of Donaghy's prison sentence when Amon sentences him July 14. He faces a maximum of 33 months in prison under federal guidelines.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=3439659
Everything they were allowed to investigate under the statute of limitations or whatever they concluded was true. Why would he add one lie in there? That makes no sense.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Everything they were allowed to investigate under the statute of limitations or whatever they concluded was true. Why would he add one lie in there?

Is the FBI investigating Donaghy's allegations? Will others be charged with crimes?

The FBI already has investigated the allegations. Donaghy first met with FBI agents in July 2007. A team of agents has been probing his stories ever since. As the result of their investigations, federal prosecutors have filed what is known as a 5(k) letter. The 5(k) letter means the agents have checked on the stories and have concluded Donaghy was truthful. The 5(k) letter does not apply to the 2002 Western Conference finals Game 6 because the statute of limitations had expired. More than five years went by before Donaghy described that game to any agents. There was no reason to look into that game because no one could be charged with a crime. The 5(k) letter does apply to statements Donaghy made to agents regarding the three games in 2005. The information could result in a reduction of Donaghy's prison sentence when Amon sentences him July 14. He faces a maximum of 33 months in prison under federal guidelines.

You answered your own question. He'll say whatever he thinks they'll believe to spend less time in jail. Why wouldn't he lie?

 

[BMiller52]

You answered your own question. He'll say whatever he thinks they'll believe to spend less time in jail. Why wouldn't he lie?

Because these guys will eventually find out whether he's lying or not, and if they do, then he faces significantly MORE time then he does if he just tells everything he knows and leaves out any lies.

You aren't giving the feds enough credit IMO. None of you are. These guys know what they're doing, they know how to get information, eventually they will find out whether he lied or not and if he lied about anything he just screwed himself over really badly and might as well have just kept his mouth shut.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Isn't that what people said about the Duke Lacross case?

I trend towards not taking the word of a convicted felon.

 

[Smills91]

Isn't that what people said about the Duke Lacross case?

I trend towards not taking the word of a convicted felon.

TERRIBLE example to illustrate your point, the last time I checked, these guys DID find out the truth. That they were INNOCENT. IT was the damn media hype condemning those kids before the actual investigation took place becasue they were 'rich, white boy dukies'.

The feds are VERY Capable. I see no reason for Danaghy to lie AT ALL. IT'd be his worst play ever and at this point he's in a pile of crap right now, he's not going to add more crap to that pile.

 

[Bricklayer]

Because these guys will eventually find out whether he's lying or not, and if they do, then he faces significantly MORE time then he does if he just tells everything he knows and leaves out any lies.

You aren't giving the feds enough credit IMO. None of you are. These guys know what they're doing, they know how to get information, eventually they will find out whether he lied or not and if he lied about anything he just screwed himself over really badly and might as well have just kept his mouth shut.

The feds are good, but they aren't magical. I've known a few. Worked against them from time to time. They are just people, working on a budget, and within a rules system. And there is no way that ANYONE can truly prove you are lying when you base your story on "somebody told me". The only way to put the lie to that is to say "no they didn't". But of course the only two people who know in such a case are Donaghy and the other ref. And both have every reason to lie. The other ref sayng "no I didn't" doesn't prove a thing. He would say "no I didn't" if he were innocent. He would also say "no I didn't" if he were guilty. That's not proof. And calls wihting a game can be subjective, or can be a guy just missing them, or having an off night, or whatever. Even if you could prove the calls were bad, you can't "prove" the why of it.

Just as an experiment here -- how exactly would, in your world, the feds "prove" he was lying about such a claim, based on what he told them?

People lie to the cops ALL THE TIME. It is one of the great constants of criminal behavior. And of course socially undesirable as it mght be, it makes perfect sense. If I was going to spend time in the slammer, and I knew the feds would cut me a break for giving them the Easter Bunny, I would look them right in the face and tell them that I had lunch with him on Tuesday (assuming of course that I knew the story was uncheckable).

 

[bozzwell]

Few points that I have after reading most of this thread. Sorry if they were addressed elsewhere/earlier:

- Donaghy's veracity or lack thereof. I absolutely understand and agree with the point that he is as shaky of a witness/whistle-blower as you can get. Before we completely dismiss him, isn't it how he got to be investigated in the first place? Feds busted some bookies and bookies gave up Donaghy? Isn't that what investigators and prosecutors always do, "roll up" criminals to get to the higher ups? Isn't it that criminals giving up other criminals for real is as common as criminals lying to get lenience? Wouldn't any deal with Donaghy be conditional on successful prosecution of who he has given up or at least some corroborating evidence as judge would not just reduce his sentence on his word? I mean, if I get busted, say for DUI, can I make up names of 10 people who were supposedly in the bar with me, which is impossible to check so that judge gives me reduced sentence?

- Even though I don't like Stern, I don't think that he had Game 6 '02 or any other game fixed per se. I do believe that he/NBA have all these "unwritten rules", wink-and-nudge understanding of how things are to be set up for the "greater good" which involves nudging a game, by company men refs into direction that favors an outcome that assures more/better spectacle, i.e. games 7, better chance for superstars/superstar teams to progress. It can be good thing as in protecting star players from thuggery or terrible thing by killing chances of an upstart team upsetting champion as in 2002. I don't think they wanted Lakers to win that badly, but by nudging them in the right direction they penilized Kings so severely that Kings could not recover in the series. Isn't that exactly what Donaghy is claiming? Not that there was a fix, but that there exists are culture in which NBA games can be officiated into direction which best suits NBA the enterprise and not the competition as such? Isn't that exactly why and how he was able to do what he did - fix the games so that he can profit? He did this on many occasions and for a long time (measure in NBA years) and he was busted by feds investigating gambling underworld and NOT by NBA.

 

[bloom]

After hearing about the allegations several days ago I didn’t want to post anything because this entire thing has ripped open my heart that still hasn’t been able to heal. Six years ago and it still kills me and that feeling will probably never go away (I just can’t imagine how the players feel). We had the best team in the NBA, our style changed the NBA and other teams wanted to be like us. I have never seen a team that was as unique as ours and I probably never will.

I don’t blame the Lakers (unless the organization had a hand in it). I don’t want their ring taken back because they played their game with the help of the refs. And honestly, I don’t think I want a ring or a banner right now. It’s like when someone cheats in the Olympics and the second runner up is supposed to get the medal but they don’t, then later on they get what they truly deserved; that feeling at the moment of the win is indescribable, the emotions, the looks, and enjoyment is completely different than giving the prize 6 months or 6 years later.

I have never looked at any sport the same way since our game 6 loss. The cheating in sports will always be there, no matter what type of game you’re watching. People want to get rid of Stern, but the next guy will probably do the same thing (if he did tell the refs to give the Lakers game 6).

The one thing I would really like is if the league acknowledged what happened with the refs in game 6 and apologized for it. Instead, they keep denying that nothing wrong happened in that game, and that’s the part that bothers me. So I guess I would love if the truth came out, but that’s not going to happen cause 1st. It’s going to be really hard to prove it 2nd. Is the NBA going to allow that kind of information to let loose?