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

[Trueblood]

It's not just the people, it's the policy of game manipulation. If Stern and Bavetta leave and the policy stays, same ol' same ol'.

Of course. It just seems to me that people are under the impression that Stern created the policy so it would most likely go if he goes.

Not saying that I necessarily agree with that but that's the majority opinion. Pesonally, I think Bavetta is a clown who does things on his own. In his mind, the health of the league is tied to his own well being meaning that a healthier league means more revenue which eventually trickles down to him as a paid referee. He needs to go asap.

With Stern, he has too much to lose to commit fraud like that but perception is reality so if the buying public thinks that he's in on a conspiracy, he may have to take a fall for the good of the game.

 

[bibbinator]

Stern works for the owners. If a majority turn against him he'd be out of a job.

As for the Lakers getting calls, LA is a huge huge market for the NBA, and LA has fans around the world. Movie stars show up at games on a regular basis. That's great PR, it provides glamor to the league. If LA sucks, the movie stars stop showing up at the games and all the bandwagon LA fans disappear: stop watching the games and buying NBA labeled product.

The Lakers are 1 teams out of 30, but are responsible for a much larger share of the revenues. The Lakers are the most popular "product" the league have to offer, as a team, followed by the Celtics and then the individual player stars.

The NBA has a lot of motive to protect their star teams and players and make sure they are admired as winners. The tilting of the refereeing to support that end is an entirely plausible result.

 

[JB_kings]

The NBA is a business first and foremost and it's product happens to be the sport of basketball. It is interested in it's own health and well being of all of it's teams - but not equally. The league thrives off it's revenues when the big markets are successful. If Joe Sixpack fan can see it's good for the NBA to have a game 7... then a veteran referee doesn't need to be told that either.

I knew going into that game that game 6 that the Kings were going to have to be ahead by a large margin in order to win. Then seeing the refs assigned, I knew it was all but over for that night. See even way back then Bavetta had this reputation. This was way before I ever knew Tim Donaghy was alive. So I really don't give a care what Donaghy has to say now. I didn't need him to tell me now what was obvious to me and so many people back then.

That said, the Kings had more than enough chances to take game 7 and didn't seize that opportunity.

 

[JJ22L]

The NBA is a business first and foremost and it's product happens to be the sport of basketball. It is interested in it's own health and well being of all of it's teams - but not equally. The league thrives off it's revenues when the big markets are successful. If Joe Sixpack fan can see it's good for the NBA to have a game 7... then a veteran referee doesn't need to be told that either.

I knew going into that game that game 6 that the Kings were going to have to be ahead by a large margin in order to win. Then seeing the refs assigned, I knew it was all but over for that night. See even way back then Bavetta had this reputation. This was way before I ever knew Tim Donaghy was alive. So I really don't give a care what Donaghy has to say now. I didn't need him to tell me now what was obvious to me and so many people back then.

That said, the Kings had more than enough chances to take game 7 and didn't seize that opportunity.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with that comment. It doesn't, however, justify the atrocity that was game 6. It also doesn't deter one from posing the argument: "if the game was ref'ed fairly, would game 7 have even been necessary?"

Regardless, this dead horse has been beaten multiple, multiple times.

 

[Rookie]

Just out of curiosity, would fans here take more interest in the Kings and the league if Stern and Bavetta retired or has all the fun already been taken out?

the only thing that has been taken fun out of the game is fans themself. I personnaly still enjoy it very much..especially when the Kings win.

More than often the refs is pretty good, especially with the new replay that they use once in a while when time permitted. The team that win is usally the team that was expected to win, not because of the refs but because of the skill players they have.

 

[fairlane1964]

I've heard the argument that game 6 being fixed shouldn't have prevented the Kings from going out and winning game 7. But I think that argument ignores the devastating effect that having game 6 stolen would have on the Kings players. If the Kings realized what was going on in game 6 (which they most likely did) then they may have gone into game 7 with the knowledge that they might not to be allowed to win game 7. After all they were just robbed of game 6 why wouldn't the refs do it again?

 

[pilot305]

I was having a good day until someone had to "bump" such a thread..... now i'm getting angry again over this....

 

[kennadog]

Sorry folks, but I can't do the ostrich in the sand routine on this one. I believe it word for word for the sole fact that it ISN'T going to be published and he AINT gonna make any money on it among other personal reasons. WHY wont it get published? Because Stern would immediately sue!

Since he has no proof of most of his accusastions, he would be committing libel and would rightfully be sued. I'd sure sue sopmeone who defamed my reputation with zero evidence, except their say-so.

It may or may not be true, but there's nothing to back up his accusations. Nothing except he says it is/was that way.

 

[bibbinator]

I've heard the argument that game 6 being fixed shouldn't have prevented the Kings from going out and winning game 7. But I think that argument ignores the devastating effect that having game 6 stolen would have on the Kings players. If the Kings realized what was going on in game 6 (which they most likely did) then they may have gone into game 7 with the knowledge that they might not to be allowed to win game 7. After all they were just robbed of game 6 why wouldn't the refs do it again?

Exactly. It's very demoralizing to know that the refs decide if you win or lose.
If Game 6 had been lost on a bad call that would be one thing, but the refs stole a game that the Kings had otherwise won.

That isn't easy to reconcile.

 

[Aenadin]

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with that comment. It doesn't, however, justify the atrocity that was game 6. It also doesn't deter one from posing the argument: "if the game was ref'ed fairly, would game 7 have even been necessary?"

Regardless, this dead horse has been beaten multiple, multiple times.

If the game was fairly called no need for game 7.. They can say that we had all the chances in game 7 but the way we lost in game 6 would really take a lot out of a person... its like f*** the league doesnt want us to win... and boosts the opposing teams morale at the same time.

really that was such a screw job

but the past is past when that happened I never looked at basketball and the NBA the same way again.. i hated the lakers to my gut and I hated Stern, and bavetta.

btw who was that ref who always made sure the lakers lose? joe crawford?

 

[JeffZX]

Since he has no proof of most of his accusastions, he would be committing libel and would rightfully be sued. I'd sure sue sopmeone who defamed my reputation with zero evidence, except their say-so.

It may or may not be true, but there's nothing to back up his accusations. Nothing except he says it is/was that way.

Nobody has sued him to date. Neither has anyone sued Jose Cansaco. Truth is the defense for a libel suit. And if lied in court he could have faced perjury charges.

 

[vistacruza_kings]

This book is mind-blowing. The NBA is an entertainment buisness not athetic competition, and alot of the stuff he talks about is still going on in the NBA today. Donaghy makes a very true point that the quality of the NBA game is at its worst, but because the NBA is marketed so well with its star players no one seems to notice. same reason fans vote AI into the all-star game.

 

[Bricklayer]

Nobody has sued him to date. Neither has anyone sued Jose Cansao. Truth is the defense for a libel suit. And if lied in court he could have faced perjury charges.

There is no "truth" to be disputed -- that is his truest defense (that and abject poverty -- what does he care if he's sued? The book is the only money he has.). His crap is all he said she said. He has no proof, offers none. But nobody can dispute it with anything other than a nuh-uh.

The NBA sends out missives on calls that are being missed -- they can't deny that. Then Donaghy says "and that way we the refs knew who they wanted to win the game". Uh...ok. Sure dude, whatever you say.

 

[vistacruza_kings]

Then Donaghy says "and that way we the refs knew who they wanted to win the game". Uh...ok. Sure dude, whatever you say.

Thats BS! Donaghy never said that. he said the refs were left to interpret THEMSELVES what the league really meant by sending those videos of missed calls.

*EDIT Nvm brick i think i misread what you said or you were unclear, i think thats what u were really sayiing

 

[Trueblood]

Thats BS! Donaghy never said that. he said the refs were left to interpret THEMSELVES what the league really meant by sending those videos of missed calls.

*EDIT Nvm brick i think i misread what you said or you were unclear, i think thats what u were really sayiing

But Donaghy's implying that the league wants those games fixed a certain way and that's where he's going overboard. He's taking advantage of the fact that there are people who want to believe that stuff because they hate the league and he's stretching the truth to not only make a buck but attempt to bring down the league.

I would have a lot more respect for him if he tried to come up with ways to improve the league and the officiating but he doesn't do that. He just wants to ruin it as much as possible.

 

[JeffZX]

There is no "truth" to be disputed -- that is his truest defense (that and abject poverty -- what does he care if he's sued? The book is the only money he has.). His crap is all he said she said. He has no proof, offers none. But nobody can dispute it with anything other than a nuh-uh.

The NBA sends out missives on calls that are being missed -- they can't deny that. Then Donaghy says "and that way we the refs knew who they wanted to win the game". Uh...ok. Sure dude, whatever you say.

Ok, how about this: First, WTF is the NBA doing monitoring every word an NBA announcer say real-time and complaining DURING THE GAME to the announcer if he says something the NBA does not like? Announcers are employed by the NBA team, so you can bet that they take heed when the NBA calls.

Secondly, look at the case of Houston coach Van Gundy. According to Donaghy, who was an alternative referee in that series, the referees received an e-mail from the league office pertaining to Yao Ming, and they discussed Yao at the morning meeting....since Cuban was upset at Yao's illegal screens, the office made sure that we were to watch him closely. We were also instructed to watch his footwork and look for traveling violations. However, contrary to league policy, the supervisor of referees for this series (with whom Van Gundy had built a relationship) passed this information along to Van Gundy. The supervisor of referees was providing inside information to Van Gundy....and told him to make sure Yao avoided setting illegal screens because the referees would be watching closely. But then Van Gundy made a mistake - he slipped up and during a news conference and told the "New York Times" and "Houston Chronicle" that he had "inside information" that he was getting screwed. In order to cover its tracks the NBA sent out a news release stating that Van Gundy apologized for his remarks about inside information, and that there was NO PROOF that an NBA referee had any communication with Van Gundy pertaining to the game.....eventually the NBA admitted that both Stu Jackson, the NBA's Executive Vice President, Basketball Operations, and Donnie Vaden, the supervisor of referees, had spoken with Van Gundy during the series. Regardless, Van Gundy received a $100,000 fine by the NBA, the largest amount ever levied against a coach. Every wonder why in a country of free speech the NBA fines its coaches for criticizing the referees. If that was ever taken to court, that policy would likely be deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Trueblood]

I've heard the argument that game 6 being fixed shouldn't have prevented the Kings from going out and winning game 7. But I think that argument ignores the devastating effect that having game 6 stolen would have on the Kings players. If the Kings realized what was going on in game 6 (which they most likely did) then they may have gone into game 7 with the knowledge that they might not to be allowed to win game 7. After all they were just robbed of game 6 why wouldn't the refs do it again?

One of my biggest problems with Bavetta is the rumor that he wanted to make up for what he considered the botched call at the end of game 5 where the ball went off Webber but they gave it to the Kings anyways. That set up Bibby's game winner. If true, it's ridiculous that Bavetta would want to sabotage an entire game just because of a botched call in the last few seconds of the preceding game.

 

[Trueblood]

Ok, how about this: First, WTF is the NBA doing monitoring every NBA announcer and complaining during the game to the announcer if he says something the NBA does not like? Announcers are employed by the NBA team, so you can bet that they take heed when the NBA calls.

Secondly, look at the case of Houston coach Van Gundy. According to Donaghy, who was an alternative referee in that series, the referees received an e-mail from the league office pertaining to Yao Ming, and they discussed Yao at the morning meeting....since Cuban was upset at Yao's illegal screens, the office made sure that we were to watch him closely. We were also instructed to watch his footwork and look for traveling violations. However, contrary to league policy, the supervisor of referees for this series (with whom Van Gundy had built a relationship) passed this information along to Van Gundy. The supervisor of referees was providing inside information to Van Gundy....and told him to make sure Yao avoided setting illegal screens because the referees would be watching closely. But then Van Gundy made a mistake - he slipped up and during a news conference and told the "New York Times" and "Houston Chronicle" that he had "inside information" that he was getting screwed. In order to cover its tracks the NBA sent out a news release stating that Van Gundy apologized for his remarks about inside information, and that there was NO PROOF that an NBA referee had any communication with Van Gundy pertaining to the game.....eventually the NBA admitted that both Stu Jackson, the NBA's Executive Vice President, Basketball Operations, and Donnie Vaden, the supervisor of referees, had spoken with Van Gundy during the series.

But I never saw what was wrong with that. The NBA is doing the right thing by going over tape that owners and coaches send to them. They point out the officiating mistakes and the league sees if there is any validity with the complaints. If they have a case, the league then notifies the refs to watch out for it. I don't see what's wrong with notifying the coach of the player in which the calls are surrounded. They are basically telling him how to advise his player to follow the rules or he'll be in foul trouble, something the coach obviously doesn't want. They are doing Van Gundy, Yao and Cuban a favor.

 

[JeffZX]

But I never saw what was wrong with that. The NBA is doing the right thing by going over tape that owners and coaches send to them. They point out the officiating mistakes and the league sees if there is any validity with the complaints. If they have a case, the league then notifies the refs to watch out for it. I don't see what's wrong with notifying the coach of the player in which the calls are surrounded. They are basically telling him how to advise his player to follow the rules or he'll be in foul trouble, something the coach obviously doesn't want. They are doing Van Gundy, Yao and Cuban a favor.

The problem comes from unequal treatment; that is, the NBA sending video to the referees and monitoring calls against one team over another to get the result desired by the NBA, and the referees notifying some coaches of what to look out for, but not notifying others. You can look at the actions of the NBA in trying to cover it up as evidence of guilt.

 

[vistacruza_kings]

I would have a lot more respect for him if he tried to come up with ways to improve the league and the officiating but he doesn't do that. He just wants to ruin it as much as possible.

have u read the book bro? the whole last chapter is purely about ideas he came up with improve the NBA and its officiating.

 

[vistacruza_kings]

There is no "truth" to be disputed -- that is his truest defense (that and abject poverty -- what does he care if he's sued? The book is the only money he has.). His crap is all he said she said. He has no proof, offers none. But nobody can dispute it with anything other than a nuh-uh.

The proof is in the pudding. When an insider can beat the point spread 70%-80% something is wrong, pure and simple. He didnt fix any games, he didnt have to.

Donaghy also states in the book that WCF Game 6 was what convinced him to bet on NBA Basketball

 

[Aenadin]

gambling referees... yes proven

he can postulate all the rigging he wants since if refs are involved in gambling theres got to be rigging etc.

if the league reacts violently to this book... some ones guilty

 

[kennadog]

Of course Donaghy would put game 6 front and center as part of his "proof." Because there are so many people ready and willing to believe it was fixed. And I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but nobody has any real evidence or proof that it was intentionally fixed by the refs.

A whole lot of people wanted to believe there were commie spys all over the US in the 50's. They didn't need any solid proof or evidence either. Somebody's say-so was enough to ruin people's lives.

You can read what Donaghy's saying, but don't accept it as gospel on NBA reffing. Have some skepticism. He's making an awful lot of money selling his theories to people who want to believe it's true.

 

[DocHolliday]

Of course Donaghy would put game 6 front and center as part of his "proof." Because there are so many people ready and willing to believe it was fixed. And I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but nobody has any real evidence or proof that it was intentionally fixed by the refs.

A whole lot of people wanted to believe there were commie spys all over the US in the 50's. They didn't need any solid proof or evidence either. Somebody's say-so was enough to ruin people's lives.

You can read what Donaghy's saying, but don't accept it as gospel on NBA reffing. Have some skepticism. He's making an awful lot of money selling his theories to people who want to believe it's true.

However, in the 50's nobody saw any evidence of any of the actions. They literally gave in to fear and believed the words of one person.

I think the reason, so many people are ready to believe this is, because they've seen so many games where referee's and especially Bavetta have single handedly changed a game.

It's late in the game and suddenly EVERY call goes to one team. I mean you know it's going to happen before it happens. If the player drives there WILL be a foul. And the other team can get MAN HANDLED on the other end and no call. Players are throwing up there hands like, "Where is the call?!", and those people are called cry babies.

We've all seen the games where one team is 20 points down and suddenly ever call goes against the team that is ahead, and miraculously the game evens out. And the team that was winning still may win, but at least the game was interesting and exciting down the stretch; and THAT is what keeps people coming back again, and again.

 

[Trueblood]

have u read the book bro? the whole last chapter is purely about ideas he came up with improve the NBA and its officiating.

I stand corrected. I'll take your word for it since I haven't read the book.

Still, that all the more confirms my suspicions about the anti NBA biases that we see in the media. On every radio talk show that I hear Donaghy on, they have never once asked him about that element of the book. They concentrate on anything and everything that is damaging to the league.

 

[Trueblood]

Of course Donaghy would put game 6 front and center as part of his "proof." Because there are so many people ready and willing to believe it was fixed. And I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but nobody has any real evidence or proof that it was intentionally fixed by the refs.

A whole lot of people wanted to believe there were commie spys all over the US in the 50's. They didn't need any solid proof or evidence either. Somebody's say-so was enough to ruin people's lives.

You can read what Donaghy's saying, but don't accept it as gospel on NBA reffing. Have some skepticism. He's making an awful lot of money selling his theories to people who want to believe it's true.

Exactly. Let's not forget how smart his advisers are. They are selling the book to make money so one of the first things that they are going to ask him is what will interest the public and what will be believed so that the book doesn't look like a fairy tale.

 

[Trueblood]

The problem comes from unequal treatment; that is, the NBA sending video to the referees and monitoring calls against one team over another to get the result desired by the NBA, and the referees notifying some coaches of what to look out for, but not notifying others. You can look at the actions of the NBA in trying to cover it up as evidence of guilt.

The treatment would be equal if other coaches and owners put in as much time scrutinizing the officiating as Cuban does. Dallas opponents get notified of what to change because Cuban will raise a stink about how the league isn't doing their due diligence when he sends them the video.

 

[vistacruza_kings]

I stand corrected. I'll take your word for it since I haven't read the book.

Still, that all the more confirms my suspicions about the anti NBA biases that we see in the media. On every radio talk show that I hear Donaghy on, they have never once asked him about that element of the book. They concentrate on anything and everything that is damaging to the league.

What? anti-NBA biases in the media??? where? who? of course theres a few good sports writers that will voice their opionions, but for most part espn and the media looks like they just want to sweep this whole situation under the mat and move on.

 

[vistacruza_kings]

Exactly. Let's not forget how smart his advisers are. They are selling the book to make money so one of the first things that they are going to ask him is what will interest the public and what will be believed so that the book doesn't look like a fairy tale.

Really dont have any idea what your talking about. How are his advertisers smart? They didnt market the book at all. The book is not even in most book store. Who is "they". Donaghy wrote this book himself, the writing is simple and and from his heart. Fairy tale? Everything in the book he also told to the FBI and and the federal court, so why would he risk perjuring himself. Hes has even taken lie detector tests for the FBI to prove his claims. And if his claims are false why wouldnt the NBA sue him up the *** to clear their name. Sure Stern had his own investegators who were employed by him create a report clearing the NBA of wrong doing, but thats about as creditable as a criminal determining guilty or innocent. Sterns comments also refuses to fully dispute that that league fixes its games, he says the NBA has done nothing criminal, well guess what David its not a crime the NBA to fix its games.


For those who havent read the book, i would suggest not commenting on it

 

[kennadog]

However, in the 50's nobody saw any evidence of any of the actions. They literally gave in to fear and believed the words of one person.

I think the reason, so many people are ready to believe this is, because they've seen so many games where referee's and especially Bavetta have single handedly changed a game.

It's late in the game and suddenly EVERY call goes to one team. I mean you know it's going to happen before it happens. If the player drives there WILL be a foul. And the other team can get MAN HANDLED on the other end and no call. Players are throwing up there hands like, "Where is the call?!", and those people are called cry babies.

We've all seen the games where one team is 20 points down and suddenly ever call goes against the team that is ahead, and miraculously the game evens out. And the team that was winning still may win, but at least the game was interesting and exciting down the stretch; and THAT is what keeps people coming back again, and again.

Actually there was supposed "evidence" against people back then. Membership in certain organizations labeled communist, being associated with people who were"commies," misconstruing innocent actions or words. Even analyzing their works in film, writing, etc. Remember, there were Senate hearings. But people were also primed to believe in the red menace right in our midst and out to get us.

As to the NBA reffing, it's also true that people look for the games that will reinforce their belief about NBA referees deliberately influencing game outcomes. Other games where its not an issue just won't stay in their minds. Its quite a human thing to do. Do refs make bad or questionable calls? Of course. Are they doing so conciously and intentionally? You're going to need more than Donaghy's say-so to prove that.

And I say all that while still being really, really upset about the 2002 WC Finals. Samaki Walker's late 3-pointer at the haltime buzzer that was counted (Don't count that shot a maybe Horry's shot wouldn't have mattered). Bibby brutally fouling Kobe with his nose. Shaq getting free throws if someone breathed on him. I still cannot watch game 6.