Quotes from Donaghy's book (that won't be released)

[bajaden]

It states that statements are an example of quotes that "won't be released." Yeah they won't be released, because he'd likely get sued for libel. He's have absolutely no facts to support his statements.

Game 6, to me, is one of the worst officiating jobs I've ever seen. It was unbelievable. Was it conspiracy or just flat out incompetence on the part of the refs that night? Only a very few people would know the truth. Is Donaghy lying? Maybe not. Even liars tell the truth sometimes. He just can't prove anything.

I can't just simply accept the statements as undoubtedly true. I have to view them with scepticism. When Donaghy forst talked about this, he'd just been convicted. He sounded like a person who's been caught and punished and his final defense is, "Ok, even if I am guilty, why are you picking on me for doing the same things in games that a bunch of other refs have and are doing?"

You know what really would at least make me feel a smidgen better? If the league ever admits what pretty much everyone knows. That was a horribly officiated game. So bad, in fact, that the Lakers would not likely have won, otherwise.

Heck, the the league never even said a thing about the Samaki Walker 3-pointer at the end of the half in game 5. Video clearly showed it was after the buzzer. Without that 3-points, Horry's buzzer beater doesn't matter. (And that's why instant replay started the next season.)

I'm not sure about the libel part. Its harder to libel a public person than it is a privite person, and the ref's, whether they like it or not, are public persons. I haven't read the book, so I don't know everything thats in it, but most so far seem to be either hear say, or, he said, she said. Its one of those things where I can't prove you said something, but you can't prove you didn't. I'm no attorney, so maybe Bricky can enlighten us somewhat on the legal ramifications. All I know is that there have been some outrageous things said about hollywood types who have then sued and lost.

As an aside. I've said to my son on many occasions when I discovered that Dick Bavetta was refing the game that there was no point in watching because we've lost before we started. I said it about game six before the game when I found out Bavetta was the ref.

 

[Showtime]

Donaghy is completely non-credible

Why is he not credible?


Also, if you click the link in the OP, there are more stories about lesser known events, and specific descriptions of actions and personalities that were behind the scenes, so it's not all "2002 WCF" talk. That was just one example that was discussed from the excerpts.

 

[Kingzrool]

Why is he not credible?

ummm. Being at the center of a scandal such as this one would generally destroy ones credibility. He has admited he is not credible.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Why is he not credible?

Because he is a criminal and a cheat and was fired in disgrace.

Which doesn't mean that I have completely written him off, but he certainly has motive to lie - in fact if he could convince people the league was fixing the results of games it lessens the impact of his crimes.

 

[Bricklayer]

The problem with the claims about Game 6 is preceisely BECAUSE its such a famous game., Its an easy target. If I were going to make something up about the NBA, its exactly where I would start, because it comes with a built in audience. If I made up something right now about that game, claimed I had talked to referee x and he had admitted y, half to he people in this thread would instantly believe me even as I made it up from whole cloth. The best lies are the ones that are easiest for other people to believe. And it doesn't mean it HAS to be a lie, but it certainly means that its classically built like one.

This stuff happens all the time in the criminal justice world -- catch a guy, get him to spill his guts, but he knows that the onyl way he can cut a deal is if he knows something big. So on top of all the little stuff he DOES know, he throws in allegations of big stuff that he knows you want him to know. You're inclined to beleive him, and hey, in certain states you may not even care that much if its not quite true -- gives you what you want.

A comparison was made earlier in this thread to Jose Canseco. Here's the difference -- when Jose Canseco came out and made his first claims, it was in the face of ridicule. Nobody (except me) believed him. It was actually one of the best arguments why it might actually be true -- it was a tough lie. An illogical lie to try to peddle without something behind it. There was still doubt there too, because obviously it too was gong to make Canseco some money. But it was the sort of claim that was going to be attacked from all sides and if it was truly baseless was going to land him in trouble. Donaghy's claim is exactly the opposite -- its the easy lie. The one that everybody already beleives. So you give them what you want, piggy back, and its an easy claim.

Now the stuff about Crawford wanting to get games done, Bavetta liking to hear his name called, guys waiting to T up certian guys etc....yeah, I can believe all that. Its the sort of stuf fa Donaghy might actually know. I would be willing to bet its exaggerated, and I would be willing to bet a vindictive little **** lie Donaghy is using his fame to settle old scores with guys he did not like, but all of those things fall within the realm of human nature. They may be unprofessional, but you see similar attitudes/actions from people all around you all the time. But now you get to the big claims, the claims everyone wants to hear, the claims Donaghy knows could hurt his enemies...suffice it to say that he has every reason in the world to lie. They could be true. But they could just as easily be a lie. And when I spot something like an apparently made up quote sitting in the middle of the book I'm hardly going to read over it.


Solid article about this thing BTW: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=dw-donaghybook102909&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

[Showtime]

Because he is a criminal and a cheat and was fired in disgrace.

So wait, being convicted of a crime and betting on games means he can't tell the truth about what happened? Are you serious? The guy altered games to cover spreads, and tipped off people to place bets based on his inside information. And that's exactly what he is talking about in this book.

This is what you guys aren't understanding: he is talking about what he was accused, and ultimately convicted of, by the courts. So what you think makes him dishonest is exactly why he isn't, because he's talking about the specific situations in which his crimes were committed (which the courts say happened), as well as other related instances. So if he's making all of this up, then why was he convicted if all of his accounts never happened? If he made it all up, then his crimes were fictional as well. But they aren't, because they have evidence and he admitted it.

The fact is he not only bet on games he reffed, but he gave tips to games he was NOT a part of, based on who were the teams and refs involved in those other games (such as the Iverson situation). That kind of information is exactly what he's expounding upon in this book. He couldn't make those kinds of tips if this stuff wasn't true.

Which doesn't mean that I don't believe him, but he certainly has motive to lie - in fact if he could convince people the league was fixing the results of games it lessens the impact of his crimes.

It's only a lie if it's not true, not the motivation. The motivation doesn't make it a lie, because he could accomplish revenge by telling the truth as well. If more people were guilty of shady actions, then blowing the whistle and outing them accomplishes revenge, which would also be telling the truth. So the motivation for revenge itself don't automatically mean he's lying. And what do you mean "lessens the impact of his crimes"? He's paying the same price no matter what anybody else thinks about his crimes. Everything that impacts his life is done, and he can't change that, so there's no point to "lesson" the impact because he can't do that.

And really, what he talks about is something many fans have talked about for DECADES. It's something we probably all have seen, and suspected. Why then suddenly disregard our own observations and intelligence just because this guy made bad choices? Why automatically assume what he says is false just because he got caught? He isn't saying things that are fantastic and unbelievable. He's saying things that make sense, are plausible, and are things many of us fans have suspected for years because of our own observations.



quote from yahoo article:

“I read it last night and was laughing, and said, ‘Yep, that’s about right,” one team executive said. “I don’t think anyone is going to dispute the possibility.”

If the NBA’s own front-office people believe this, then how can fans simply dismiss it?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...slug=dw-donaghybook102909&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

[pdxKingsFan]

So wait, being convicted of a crime and betting on games means he can't tell the truth about what happened? Are you serious?

Yes, telling the truth and being credible are not the same thing.

 

[Kingzrool]

Showtime, if you cannot see that his credibility is shot, I do not even know what to say. Noone said that it means that he can't tell the truth, it simply means that he has zero credibility.

Lets end the whining.

The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win Game 7

As much as I hate to say it, this statement is spot on. The Kings played an unacceptable game 7 and were clearly not the better team. Deal with it!

 

[swisshh]

A comparison was made earlier in this thread to Jose Canseco. Here's the difference -- when Jose Canseco came out and made his first claims, it was in the face of ridicule. Nobody (except me) believed him. It was actually one of the best arguments why it might actually be true -- it was a tough lie. An illogical lie to try to peddle without something behind it. There was still doubt there too, because obviously it too was gong to make Canseco some money. But it was the sort of claim that was going to be attacked from all sides and if it was truly baseless was going to land him in trouble. Donaghy's claim is exactly the opposite -- its the easy lie. The one that everybody already beleives. So you give them what you want, piggy back, and its an easy claim.

I don't see how Canseco's claim is the tough lie and this is the easy lie. People were questioning players about steroids, they had questioned McGwire on steroids and his 'special shakes', and McGwire was one of the guys Canseco named. The question and doubt is already there, how is that any tougher a lie?

And you discount all the naysayers and the attitude towards talking about officiating in the NBA. Many people still treat it as wacko conspiracy theory despite the history of it, and to talk openly about it on major networks or even during a game is not accepted. Any claim like Canseco's or Donaghy's has to face the wraith of the boys clubhouse. This is a white elephant.

 

[Showtime]

Showtime, if you cannot see that his credibility is shot, I do not even know what to say.

If he's lying about his crimes that he's been convicted of, then he's not a criminal. That logic makes no sense, and is the approach you would like to take. He's discussing exactly why he was able to commit the crimes he was convicted of, which was inside information about how the league, and refs, work. That is why he was able to become a criminal, and is what he is talking about. Again, making the wrong choices does not make a person automatically dishonest.

Credibility was exactly the excuse people used against Jose Canseco.

Noone said that it means that he can't tell the truth, it simply means that he has zero credibility.

I don't see how he is not credible in talking about events which he was convicted of. The courts had enough evidence in his crimes to convict him. He admitted it. THAT is what gives him credibility: he's discussing his crimes, the environment around him, and how he was able to commit them, which is why he is guilty and is a criminal. If his crimes are credible, then I don't see how his accounts explaining what went down in events connected with his criminal actions are not.

As much as I hate to say it, this statement is spot on. The Kings played an unacceptable game 7 and were clearly not the better team. Deal with it!

They lost, and I'm not debating that. If they make their FT's, they win. It's on them. I get it. But there wouldn't be a game 7 to choke away if not for game 6. That's what I take issue with. I'm not pinning the entire series loss on the refs, but I won't disregard cheating just because the kings couldn't hit FT's. This isn't about that loss, it's about the refs, and situations which still may be going on RIGHT NOW. I'm not posting this thread because I'm mad about the Kings losing. I'm posting this thread because of the corruption of the game which goes above and beyond the sacramento kings.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't see how Canseco's claim is the tough lie and this is the easy lie. People were questioning players about steroids, they had questioned McGwire on steroids and his 'special shakes', and McGwire was one of the guys Canseco named. The question and doubt is already there, how is that any tougher a lie?

And you discount all the naysayers and the attitude towards talking about officiating in the NBA. Many people still treat it as wacko conspiracy theory despite the history of it, and to talk openly about it on major networks or even during a game is not accepted. Any claim like Canseco's or Donaghy's has to face the wraith of the boys clubhouse. This is a white elephant.

Hardly.

Canseco was pretty much the first voice, the pioneer, for accusations of league wide doping. Donaghy is a johnny come very lately for Game 6.

 

[beb0p]

Hardly.

Canseco was pretty much the first voice, the pioneer, for accusations of league wide doping. Donaghy is a johnny come very lately for Game 6.

But Donaghy is the "first voice, the pioneer" for accusations of many other things. Game 6 is just a small piece of his "revelation."

As for Game 6, Donaghy is the first public person, the very first one, to connect the fix directly to the top of the command structure. The common belief is that individual referee wanted to extend the series, or was enamored by the Lakers, or didn't like the Kings, or was just grossly incompetent. Even most hardcore Kings fans didn't think David Stern personally ordered the fix.

Donaghy took that and went much further. It's not exactly an easy lie, it's taking an easy lie and adding salt to it to make a new lie. This new lie is untested and may draw attacks from all sides like Canseco experienced. Except, it may not be a lie. Only Donaghy and a small circle of people will ever know the truth.

 

[Trueblood]

The problem with the claims about Game 6 is preceisely BECAUSE its such a famous game., Its an easy target. If I were going to make something up about the NBA, its exactly where I would start, because it comes with a built in audience. If I made up something right now about that game, claimed I had talked to referee x and he had admitted y, half to he people in this thread would instantly believe me even as I made it up from whole cloth. The best lies are the ones that are easiest for other people to believe. And it doesn't mean it HAS to be a lie, but it certainly means that its classically built like one.

This stuff happens all the time in the criminal justice world -- catch a guy, get him to spill his guts, but he knows that the onyl way he can cut a deal is if he knows something big. So on top of all the little stuff he DOES know, he throws in allegations of big stuff that he knows you want him to know. You're inclined to beleive him, and hey, in certain states you may not even care that much if its not quite true -- gives you what you want.

A comparison was made earlier in this thread to Jose Canseco. Here's the difference -- when Jose Canseco came out and made his first claims, it was in the face of ridicule. Nobody (except me) believed him. It was actually one of the best arguments why it might actually be true -- it was a tough lie. An illogical lie to try to peddle without something behind it. There was still doubt there too, because obviously it too was gong to make Canseco some money. But it was the sort of claim that was going to be attacked from all sides and if it was truly baseless was going to land him in trouble. Donaghy's claim is exactly the opposite -- its the easy lie. The one that everybody already beleives. So you give them what you want, piggy back, and its an easy claim.

Now the stuff about Crawford wanting to get games done, Bavetta liking to hear his name called, guys waiting to T up certian guys etc....yeah, I can believe all that. Its the sort of stuf fa Donaghy might actually know. I would be willing to bet its exaggerated, and I would be willing to bet a vindictive little **** lie Donaghy is using his fame to settle old scores with guys he did not like, but all of those things fall within the realm of human nature. They may be unprofessional, but you see similar attitudes/actions from people all around you all the time. But now you get to the big claims, the claims everyone wants to hear, the claims Donaghy knows could hurt his enemies...suffice it to say that he has every reason in the world to lie. They could be true. But they could just as easily be a lie. And when I spot something like an apparently made up quote sitting in the middle of the book I'm hardly going to read over it.


Solid article about this thing BTW: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=dw-donaghybook102909&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Great post. That's exactly what I thought when he made those allegations during the Celtics/Lakers series in June of 2008. He and his legal people sought out the most logical situations that the public would believe and he's running with it. Game 6 is # 1 on everyone's mind so he's going to milk it for all it's worth.

The problem is that the league has already done an investigation and has talked to all the refs involved in that game. The feds were in on it. It's over and done with. No matter how hard this guy tries to bring down the league, it won't work.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Hardly.

Canseco was pretty much the first voice, the pioneer, for accusations of league wide doping. Donaghy is a johnny come very lately for Game 6.

Well Donaghy is the first official to come forward so if he had any credibility it would be huge. I just can't imagine any other refs coming forward unless they also leave under negative circumstances, not only would they be blackballed they'd probably be exposed to all kinds of legal liability unless whistleblower laws apply here.

 

[Trueblood]

As far as Canseco is concerned, the main difference is that people didn't want to believe what he was talking about. MLB has decades of goodwill built up. It has been followed by generations and generations. It's sacred to a lot of people and Canseco's claims damaged the credibility of the league so people were hoping it wasn't true.

With Donaghy, it's much different. There's still a segment of our society who hate the NBA and the majority of it's players. They would love nothing more than to see the league fold. Therefore, more people want to believe Donaghy than there are people who want to believe Canseco.

I don't doubt that some of the minor allegations are true. Refs dislike for certain players and so forth. I believe it. But it ties into the perception that the league has. The refs listen to the talk show call in haters. The message board nazis who hang out in their parent's basement and they feel like they're in a different boat than the NFL and MLB officials. As a result, there's no honor in what they do and it leads to things like this.

All that being said, this is good for the league in the long run. In a very indirect way, Donaghy helped the league because if there still are refs out there who are shady, they'll take one look at what a disaster Donaghy's life has become as well as the time he spent in jail and won't want to be a part of that. Therefore, they'll be extra sure to be on the up and up and avoid this sort of situation.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

As far as Canseco is concerned, the main difference is that people didn't want to believe what he was talking about. MLB has decades of goodwill built up. It has been followed by generations and generations. It's sacred to a lot of people and Canseco's claims damaged the credibility of the league so people were hoping it wasn't true.

This is a good point. In general, people did not want to believe Canseco for a lot of reasons revolving around the history and integrity of the game.

Next I thought you were going to say that on the other hand nobody really looks at NBA officials in the same light that baseball was looked at. They're not sacred, if they cheated, then fine, fire the guys and get some new ones. On top of that, the insinuation that officials were rigging games could provide some sort of "justification" to fans when their teams didn't win, which might further encourage belief in stories about cheating officials (the opposite effect as seen for cheating baseball players).

But you said this:

With Donaghy, it's much different. There's still a segment of our society who hate the NBA and the majority of it's players. They would love nothing more than to see the league fold.

Seriously? What?

 

[Bricklayer]

As for Game 6, Donaghy is the first public person, the very first one, to connect the fix directly to the top of the command structure. The common belief is that individual referee wanted to extend the series, or was enamored by the Lakers, or didn't like the Kings, or was just grossly incompetent. Even most hardcore Kings fans didn't think David Stern personally ordered the fix.

Heh -- I don't know what team you have been following, but the allgegations that Stern fixed that series started roughly 30 seconds after the game ended, and have never ceased despite a complete lack of evidence to make that connection. Until of course Donaghy conveniently provided it.

As an aside, if you read Donaghy's stuff even HE does not actually make the direct accusation that "Stern said". What he repeatedly does is say that the league would point out things to watch for, and that the refs then interpreted those pointers to figure out how to fix things. Well now...maybe. Sure. In the movies at least that makes a subtle way to fix things without being explicit. But it also allows for a ref, particualryl a dishonest dickweed like Donaghy, to read into things anything he wants to. The league sends out a memo to watch for Nash traveling, then hey, obviously they want Nash to lose. And maybe they did. Or maybe Nash was in fact traveling.

As I mentioned above, certain refs having grudges, or wanting to go home quickly, or making stupid bets on who makes the first foul call, or punishing a guy because they don't think the league punished him enough...I can see all of that. It doesn't require the extraordinary leap of giant conspiracies that would risk a multi-billion dollar business for nothing. It just requires people to be people. Stupid, vindictive, entitled, lazy...all normal people flaws. The rest, the big stuff, is still awaiting that credible witness.

 

[DocHolliday]

Honestly I could believe this, howeever I have one problem. He was not on that officiating crew. How does he know what Bavetta said in the pre-game meeting?

Is he insinuating that one of the other two refs directly told him this information?

 

[Chupacabra]

I definitely believe game 6 was fixed, as well as the entire series. Its not very logical to think that the NBA referees really had THAT BAD of a game officiating. How does an official ref most games fairly evenly and then put out that type of a performance on such a high stage? I think the idea that it was simply a poorly refereed game is preposterous. The uneveness in officiating was truely shocking.

 

[Trueblood]

Seriously? What?

Absolutely. Listen to talk radio. Read neutral message board discussions that aren't affiliated with an NBA team. The bigots are out there. Whether they are up front about it or use veiled racist slurs, there are a lot of people that don't like a league that's predominantly black.

And it's not just whites who are haters. There are plenty of people of color who hate the fact that there are athletes who they consider to be inferior to them from an intelligence standpoint, out there who make a lot more money than they do.

Trust me, it's been talked about and isn't some deep secret. There are people who are uncomfortable with the league and love to see it discredited. To them, Donaghy gets the benefit of the doubt no matter what he says. And Donaghy knows this.

Obviously, the players aren't the ones involved in any sort of cover up, even if one did exist but that's not how they see it. Let's milk these conspiracy theories for all their worth, watch attendance and ratings slowly decline and things will go our way. That's how SOME people think. Not the majority but enough to give a chump like Donaghy a rolling snowball.

 

[Trueblood]

Honestly I could believe this, howeever I have one problem. He was not on that officiating crew. How does he know what Bavetta said in the pre-game meeting?

Is he insinuating that one of the other two refs directly told him this information?

Exactly. FWIW, those 2 refs were investigated by the feds and have denied it. If Donaghy could somehow prove that they are lying, that would be a federal offense.

 

[swisshh]

As far as Canseco is concerned, the main difference is that people didn't want to believe what he was talking about. MLB has decades of goodwill built up. It has been followed by generations and generations. It's sacred to a lot of people and Canseco's claims damaged the credibility of the league so people were hoping it wasn't true.

True

With Donaghy, it's much different. There's still a segment of our society who hate the NBA and the majority of it's players. They would love nothing more than to see the league fold. Therefore, more people want to believe Donaghy than there are people who want to believe Canseco.

Wait, what? Who are these people you speak of?

The same old fashioned, golly-gee types that didn't want to believe steroids were a part of the MLB do not want to believe the NBA game is fixed.

I don't doubt that some of the minor allegations are true. Refs dislike for certain players and so forth. I believe it. But it ties into the perception that the league has. The refs listen to the talk show call in haters. The message board nazis who hang out in their parent's basement and they feel like they're in a different boat than the NFL and MLB officials. As a result, there's no honor in what they do and it leads to things like this.

They feel like they are on a different boat from the NFL, because the NFL holds their officials publicly accountable. The NFL doesn't keep officials with a long track record of bad calls and bias tendencies. The NBA, on the other hand, keeps those types and do not hold refs publicly accountable. That is a vital difference. I am not sure if that is the difference you meant though.

All that being said, this is good for the league in the long run. In a very indirect way, Donaghy helped the league because if there still are refs out there who are shady, they'll take one look at what a disaster Donaghy's life has become as well as the time he spent in jail and won't want to be a part of that. Therefore, they'll be extra sure to be on the up and up and avoid this sort of situation.

Here, let me put it this way for everybody reading.

Would you be willing to accept that Donaghy's accusation that refs have certain behaviors and that he relayed these behaviors to the betters so that they could better benefit from gambling on the games? Was he not arrested for point shaving and insider information?

Then, if you accept that, do you then suppose that the type of people Donaghy is working with would not continually work with him if the information he was giving was not helping them? I would say it was helping them if he was continually 'employed' by them.

If you accept these things, then does that not display a bias that is consistent enough to base betting practices and lines upon? Just as most sports lines are based on consistent statistics?

Are these things also taken as widely but secretly held truths about the league? Do players, fans and execs all acknowledge this chain of truths?

So, if these things are real and they are known, why do they persist? Where is Stern and the NBA to address the issue?

I am saying that the important thing here is not just that Donaghy was giving inside information on the officials and who was officiating, but that this information was reliable enough to profit off of. That alone shows a desecrated sanctity of competition. That people who rely on statistical analysis were using Donaghy's info as well. The sort of thing that the steroid doubters didn't want to see or hear. Their idea is that sports it still sacred. These Donaghy excerpts, completely throwing out both the 2006 and 2000 examples, are showing the game as tarnished.

 

[beb0p]

Heh -- I don't know what team you have been following, but the allgegations that Stern fixed that series started roughly 30 seconds after the game ended, and have never ceased despite a complete lack of evidence to make that connection. Until of course Donaghy conveniently provided it.

There were fans who blamed Stern just as there are Elvis fans who still think the King is alive. They don't represent the majority and certainly isn't large enough to feed gasoline to fire. Donaghy fingered his mentor as a "company man" a "go to guy" when the league wants to fix games. It suggests that Bavetta is taking orders from above. That's a direct link from Bavetta to someone high in the food chain. Some disgruntled fans aside, no one has ever taken a swing at that high a level.

What is without dispute, is that bias exists in the game. Be it a ref who dislike/like a player or a team. The only questions that remain are:

1. Is the top level at the NBA aware of the bias.
2. If yes, what do they do to address it.
3. Did they purposely use the bias to influence games.

It's a slippery slope. Once the knowledge is there, the temptation is to use that knowledge (assigning certain refs to certain games) to influence the outcome. It's human nature. That's how the Italian Serie A got into trouble. Like the NBA, for a long time there were whispers of game fixing. Similar to the Donaghy accusation, the accusation involves what most fans suspected but couldn't prove. And like the defender of NBA is doing now, there were many defenders of Serie A who said there is no proof, no truth to the rumor, and no way the league is dumb enough to fix games. Until of course, the day that the proof surfaced.

Now, I don't know if Donaghy is lying or telling the truth. For that matter, I don't know if the NBA is lying or telling the truth. But I would be naive to think that there is no possibility that Game 6 is fixed. For as long as there is professional sport, there is game fixing. Even though I'm a fan, I'm not going to say that the NBA is immune from corruption.

 

[BritishColumbia]

It's a slippery slope. Once the knowledge is there, the temptation is to use that knowledge (assigning certain refs to certain games) to influence the outcome. It's human nature. That's how the Italian Serie A got into trouble. Like the NBA, for a long time there were whispers of game fixing. Similar to the Donaghy accusation, the accusation involves what most fans suspected but couldn't prove. And like the defender of NBA is doing now, there were many defenders of Serie A who said there is no proof, no truth to the rumor, and no way the league is dumb enough to fix games. Until of course, the day that the proof surfaced.

Now, I don't know if Donaghy is lying or telling the truth. For that matter, I don't know if the NBA is lying or telling the truth. But I would be naive to think that there is no possibility that Game 6 is fixed. For as long as there is professional sport, there is game fixing. Even though I'm a fan, I'm not going to say that the NBA is immune from corruption.

Well said ... and I think Serie A example is right on the money.

 

[Gargamel]

I consider some of his notions (not necessarily the specific claims) about outside things seeping into the way the call games, however, specific events that completely corrupt a game are prolly fewer than he wants readers to believe. I've been convinced for years that the refs were teaching Shaq a lesson for cursing at them in the Miller/Oakley game. They swallowed their whistles to the point where Shaq snapped and they knew they screwed up and conveniently called a F-1 on Miller for the final foul when he got nothing for the same plays earlier. League suspends BM after the fact for an F-1, their mea culpa for the refs mishandling the game. Never seen any game like that one before or since.

 

[Oprostaj]

Well said ... and I think Serie A example is right on the money.

Yep, and when it hit over there, nobody was immune. For God's sake Juventus was relegated. That would be like sending the Celtics to the NBDL over here. All it takes is one guy to get the ball rolling, and Canseco showed that credibility matters little when the truth comes out. Canseco had little to gain except for money, and he did not have to fear any issues since he admitted to his wrongdoing. Tim is still trying to use this as "leverage" and maybe to help his own cause, which is why I would take this with a grain of salt

But if I was to use an analogy...

Baseball - the players got so big, numbers jumped so fast and it was almost comical to the point that it became obvious. Except nobody cared because it brought ratings and revenue

Basketball - maybe not as much clear cut since refeers are, at the end of the day, "human" and prone to mistakes. But, there are such, again, comical happenings like the Game 6 (I watched that game with a friend who was not even a casual basketball fan, and he was laughing at what was happening) and the Crawford v Duncan happening a couple of years ago that it is not beyond reach to believe Referees have bigger egos and personal vendettas. I would also not put it beyond Stern to organize something like this. The guy is the Darth Vader of the NBA, rules with an iron fist. Bill Simmons always jokes about his power in the NBA, but take a look at the past - he always got his way.

 

[King Baller]

I skimmed the posts because I'm heading out to work shortly. Canseco was credible because we could all SEE the difference in the size of the players. Heck anyone who has ever set foot in a gym can point out who is doing steroids and who is not and be right a good percentage of the time. There will always be a few exceptions because some people are freaks of nature. For most people incredible growth like we have seen is not possible without chemical help.

The NBA refs are biased for the Star Players. Fans have known this for years. Bavetta makes a lot of bad calls agaisnt the Kings. The Kings were robbed during that playoff series with the lakers. I think there have been some shenanigans in the NBA. What Donaghy is saying just repeats what I already knew.

The NBA is an entertainment industry and NOT a pure sporting event. There is way too much money involved for everyone involved to play it straight.

KB

 

[USNAVY15]

There is way too much money involved for everyone involved to play it straight.

KB

new sig 4 me!!!

 

[VF21]

If you want to believe in conspiracies, etc. it's of course your choice. I would point out, however, that once you decide that it's all rigged you really have no basis for discussing the various games because it's all rigged anyway.

 

[TheFifthMookie]

The NBA refs are biased for the Star Players. Fans have known this for years. Bavetta makes a lot of bad calls agaisnt the Kings. The Kings were robbed during that playoff series with the lakers. I think there have been some shenanigans in the NBA. What Donaghy is saying just repeats what I already knew.

The NBA is an entertainment industry and NOT a pure sporting event. There is way too much money involved for everyone involved to play it straight.

KB

that sums up how I feel about a lot of this.