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

[bozzwell]

While I am still wearing my tin-foil hat... might as well contribute this to the discussion...

Anyone else thinks that Game 4 of the current finals was called well, with just a few glaring mistakes (relative to an average play off game)? Is there a new edict following latest Donaghy claims to call games _evenly_?

Let's look at the FT's awarded per game:

Game 1 2 3 4
LAL 28 10 34 29
BOS 35 38 22 28

Looking just at FTA's game 4 was the most evenly called. Game 1 close second (the only game in a 7 game series that doesn't need "fixing" to readjust the series).

 

[quick dog]

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).

Pay attention. This is absolutely the truth.

One might even substitute the word "human" for "criminal" in Brickie's paragraph. Plus, it may seem inexplicable to a thoughtful mainstream person why a crooked referee, or any other slithering subhuman, might tell someone about an illegal act that they committed. Call it guilt or simple bragging, it seems to be the nature of crooks to talk too much. Secrets are not easy to keep for some. Fortunately, I have a short memory for gossip, misdemeanors, and assorted felonies.

.

 

[quick dog]

While I am still wearing my tin-foil hat... might as well contribute this to the discussion...

Anyone else thinks that Game 4 of the current finals was called well, with just a few glaring mistakes (relative to an average play off game)? Is there a new edict following latest Donaghy claims to call games _evenly_?

Let's look at the FT's awarded per game:

Game 1 2 3 4
LAL 28 10 34 29
BOS 35 38 22 28

Looking just at FTA's game 4 was the most evenly called. Game 1 close second (the only game in a 7 game series that doesn't need "fixing" to readjust the series).

I don't recall seeing a point guard take a bloody forearm shiver to the chops, then being called for blocking. I did not see any calls on individuals who made no absolutely contact with the opponent. There were no after-the-buzzer desperation threes awarded. I don't recall 27 free-throws per quarter. No comparison.

Regardless, an aluminum foil hat might be more practical and attractive than a feather boa.

 

[uolj]

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).

Sorry, you're still arguing the wrong point. People lie to the cops all the time, for a reason. Donaghy has little reason to do it and lots of reason not to.

There's two important lines of evidence indicating he is not lying:

1. All the information we have says that he has done nothing but tell the truth since he was confronted with the original allegations that took him down. This includes working under cover for the feds by continuing to place bets after they contacted him. People lie to cops all the time, but how often do they do it when they've been proven to have been telling the truth and cooperating the whole time prior.
2. There is little reward here to justify the risk. You might argue there is little risk, but any slip up, even if you can't foresee how you could be caught, and the good will built up through cooperation is lost. There has to be a tangible reward for that risk. In this case, there isn't because he was able to give the feds lots of things that they pursued and found to be truthful and one more thing wouldn't bolster his standing much more (especially when it was something they didn't care about or look into).

I'd give it at best a 5% chance he's lying and maybe a 25% chance he's telling the truth but was mistaken.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Sorry, you're still arguing the wrong point. People lie to the cops all the time, for a reason. Donaghy has little reason to do it and lots of reason not to.

He has no reason not to; he can't be caught in a lie, because he's accusing people of something that can neither be proven nor disproven. He can't "prove" they cheated, and they can't "prove" that they didn't; it's his word against theirs. If they say they didn't do it, all he has to say is, "well, they're lying," and then who's going to know?

He's lying because he thinks, if they believe him, that they'll shorten his sentence. And, even if they don't believe him, they can't possibly prove he's lying, anyway. He's accusing that game of being fixed because he knows people will believe it. Because they want to believe it. You can't "prove" that game was fixed; you can choose to believe that the circumstantial evidence serves as "proof," but it doesn't. The only thing that could serve as legitimate proof would be a sworn confession by either a game official, or anybody else accused of being involved. Everything else is hearsay, no matter how compelling the "evidence" appears to be.

Again, there is no risk for Donaghy. He doesn't have to worry about what will happen to him if they find out he's lying. They won't. They can't. How can people be comparing this guy to Clemens' trainer, or Canseco? Those guys may have been questionable, but at least they were able to say, "this guy's cheating, and I know he's cheating, because I was there when he did it, and I saw him," or "I know this guy's on drugs, because I supplied him with the drugs, and I injected him myself." Donaghy doesn't have anything approaching that level of credibility regarding Game 6. Hell, he wasn't even there: he's essentially telling the feds "I heard from this guy who told somebody that the game was fixed." How is that believable?

 

[uolj]

He has no reason not to
...
He's lying because he thinks, if they believe him, that they'll shorten his sentence. And, even if they don't believe him, they can't possibly prove he's lying, anyway.

The risk is that they don't believe him. He had already built up a level of cooperation. Even if they can't prove it, if they believe he's lying then he loses all that he's built up. It doesn't matter if they can prove it or not.

or anybody else accused of being involved

There was nobody else accused of being involved. I'm not convinced we have the same understanding of what Donaghy's allegations were.

he's essentially telling the feds "I heard from this guy who told somebody that the game was fixed." How is that believable?

Why is it not? I have no reason to believe he'd lie about it and the previously stated many reasons to believe he wouldn't.

 

[Bricklayer]

The risk is that they don't believe him.

Again, this is precisely why there should be red flags going off for anybody stopping to really think abouut it. He chose perhaps THE most famous questionable event of its kind -- a move that would be 100% in line wiht somebody trying to gain credibility for a lie. If he makes reference to some random first round Eastern conference playoff series in 1999 that nobody even remmebers happens, its much more likely to be true. He chose something that many many people were chomping at the bit to believe in the first place. There is almost NO danger that the feds recieving info on such an event would dismiss it out of hand. And because of the vague nature of his accusations, almost no danger that it oculd ever be truyl dismissed. Indded you see in the hands of the general public how it has been copletely embraced without any real evidence at all.

Why is it not? I have no reason to believe he'd lie about it and the previously stated many reasons to believe he wouldn't.

You continue to insist on working on simplified dichotomy of a) he helped the feds or b) he refused to help the feds, as if any little help he provided them with is enough to get him his current sentece. Its far more likely that precisely because they want to bleed every drop of info from a guy in his position, the more he helps them, the more they help him. He helps them a little, they tell the judge sure, knock it down to 8 years. He helps more, 7 years. He helps more, 6 years. Barring some tremendous knock out blow, which obviously he did not have, every little bit of dirt, or anything looking like dirt, helps his cause.

And this is of course before we get to the simple and direct motivation of revenge agains the league who turned on him (the ironic criminal thinking where the victim is the bad guy after you got done screwing them over).

 

[bozzwell]

I don't recall seeing a point guard take a bloody forearm shiver to the chops, then being called for blocking. I did not see any calls on individuals who made no absolutely contact with the opponent. There were no after-the-buzzer desperation threes awarded. I don't recall 27 free-throws per quarter. No comparison.

Well, that was my point. If there were phantom calls and LAL had 27 FT's in the 4th to stave of the Celts last night, then it would be like 2002 game 6. As it was, the game was called pretty evenly. Games 2 and 3 favored home teams, albeit nowhere near as much Lakers were in Game 6 of 2002.

 

[kingsnation]

I don't know if this has been posted, but here's Doug Christie's take on Game 6:

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3438761&categoryId=2459788

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't know if this has been posted, but here's Doug Christie's take on Game 6:

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3438761&categoryId=2459788

Yeah, that was pretty good, including the PTI guys afterward.

Nobody says they know. Because we don't. But everybody is in the spot where...it makes you wonder.

 

[bozzwell]

Again, this is precisely why there should be red flags going off for anybody stopping to really think abouut it. He chose perhaps THE most famous questionable event of its kind -- a move that would be 100% in line wiht somebody trying to gain credibility for a lie.

Media chose to focus on that game as the most glaring example, Donaghy has listed several and released the statement via his lawyer when NBA filed a $1mil suit against him. Info being made public is a tit-for-tat between NBA and Donaghy's lawyer. Whatever Donaghy copped up to and whoever he grassed up would not become clear until further prosecution, if NBA didn't file their lawsuit.

There is also a distinct possibility that all the feds and prosecutors have been residents of USA for more then 6 years and they must have heard about Game 6 controversy and would have wanted to talk to Donaghy about it no matter what.

As much as this is a tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory (for now) and as much as I don't believe that NBA deliberately fixed 2002 WCF series for Lakers to win (as I explained earlier, I beleive there is always nudging and bending of the rules to stimulate outcomes that fatten bottom line), I am finding it harder and harder to find credible scenarios where 02 WCF Game 6 is a simple abberation and would happen anyway if enough games/seasons are played. I'll take Donaghy's or anyone else's word over any theory that requires me to believe that 02 WCF series was clean. It's just what I saw vs. what someone, anyone says.

 

[kennadog]

[/b]Plus, it may seem inexplicable to a thoughtful mainstream person why a crooked referee, or any other slithering subhuman, might tell someone about an illegal act that they committed. Call it guilt or simple bragging, it seems to be the nature of crooks to talk too much.

I know another very big reason. People who do illegal or unethical things frequently justify their behavior with the "everybody does it" rationale. It's called projection. They ease any possible guilt, by assuming everyone basically feels and acts like they do, thus making it acceptable.

I can't tell you how many people have told me about how they basically lied about their charitable contributions on their tax returns. "Everybody does it. Taxes are too high anyway."

Or people who won't correct a cashier when they get too much change back, because nobody does that and they are being ripped off by high prices anyway. (Of course, they'd definitely correct the cashier if they didn't get enough change back.)

One of my favorites is the, "Yeah I'm cheating on my spouse, I'm sure they are or have cheated on me, because every man/woman cheats at some point."

Bottom line is that Donaghy may justify the lie, because he actually believes all referees behave unethically some times, just like him. So to him, the egregiously bad officiating in game 6 is just proof of that. A belief he's sure is the truth.

By the way, I once had an adult friend tell my young son I was "too" honest, when he told her what I'd said about ethical behavior in a specific instance.

 

[uolj]

Again, this is precisely why there should be red flags going off for anybody stopping to really think abouut it. He chose perhaps THE most famous questionable event of its kind -- a move that would be 100% in line wiht somebody trying to gain credibility for a lie. If he makes reference to some random first round Eastern conference playoff series in 1999 that nobody even remmebers happens, its much more likely to be true. He chose something that many many people were chomping at the bit to believe in the first place. There is almost NO danger that the feds recieving info on such an event would dismiss it out of hand. And because of the vague nature of his accusations, almost no danger that it oculd ever be truyl dismissed. Indded you see in the hands of the general public how it has been copletely embraced without any real evidence at all.

Ok, let's say I agree with all of this. My point still stands. There is some (even if it's small) risk that the feds believe he's full of it. They could talk to the people involved and those people could easily tell more convincing stories. Even if they could never prove it false, it is possible that they won't believe it and he loses the favor he has built.

You continue to insist on working on simplified dichotomy of a) he helped the feds or b) he refused to help the feds, as if any little help he provided them with is enough to get him his current sentece. Its far more likely that precisely because they want to bleed every drop of info from a guy in his position, the more he helps them, the more they help him. He helps them a little, they tell the judge sure, knock it down to 8 years. He helps more, 7 years. He helps more, 6 years. Barring some tremendous knock out blow, which obviously he did not have, every little bit of dirt, or anything looking like dirt, helps his cause.

And this is of course before we get to the simple and direct motivation of revenge agains the league who turned on him (the ironic criminal thinking where the victim is the bad guy after you got done screwing them over).

Let's say I give the cooperation with the feds by going under cover and the other allegations that were found to be true (or at least believed) a total of 50 points. What is this one worth? Now remember that this allegation was made secretly to the cops. It doesn't get more points because it is inflammatory because at the time it wasn't supposed to be public. It only gets more points if it helps the feds make their case or nab somebody else. It is only hearsay, so it doesn't help them much there either other than giving them a place to look if they wanted to. So given that I'd say it's worth 2 points.

Even if you disagree and think its worth more, the question is whether it is worth it to risk losing the 50 points already built up for another 2-5. In my opinion it's not even that close.

Seriously, you keep arguing that it can't be proven and that guys will say anything to please the feds and reduce their sentence. I've stipulated those facts already. Do you have a rebuttal to these points? (It's a serious question, not a taunt. This seems way too obvious to me for you to be missing it.)

 

[bozzwell]

I know another very big reason. People who do illegal or unethical things frequently justify their behavior with the "everybody does it" rationale. It's called projection. They ease any possible guilt, by assuming everyone basically feels and acts like they do, thus making it acceptable.

I can't tell you how many people have told me about how they basically lied about their charitable contributions on their tax returns. "Everybody does it. Taxes are too high anyway."

Or people who won't correct a cashier when they get too much change back, because nobody does that and they are being ripped off by high prices anyway. (Of course, they'd definitely correct the cashier if they didn't get enough change back.)

One of my favorites is the, "Yeah I'm cheating on my spouse, I'm sure they are or have cheated on me, because every man/woman cheats at some point."

Bottom line is that Donaghy may justify the lie, because he actually believes all referees behave unethically some times, just like him. So to him, the egregiously bad officiating in game 6 is just proof of that. A belief he's sure is the truth.

By the way, I once had an adult friend tell my young son I was "too" honest, when he told her what I'd said about ethical behavior in a specific instance.

I know how you feel, trust me. I could have lost everything for being "too honest". I get your examples about projecting too. Still, there is possibility, no matter how corrupt, dishonest and degenerate Donaghy is, that he simply knows more details about NBA going ons and any shennanigans that may be going on. In that case he doesn't have to lie, project or make stuff up in any way to get lenience.

 

[NewMonkey]

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

I've said repeatedly that Game 6 was fixed since the night it was played. I don't need Donaghy's corroboration. In fact, I think it's more likely than not that he's lying about his knowledge of the fix. That doesn't change the fact that the fix was in. The NBA had a vested interest in a huge Game 7 showdown. The calls in Game 6 were so ridiculously bad that there is no possible way the officials could have been that incompetent without prior intent.

People are taking Dongahy's allegations seriously because the game was obviously fixed, whether he actually knew about it or not.

 

[quick dog]

Thanks for the tip Kingsnation. There was a sequence of videos, but the clip with Lester Munson, ESPN's legal analyst, was by far the most illuminating.

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3437215&n8pe6c=1&categoryId=2459788

Among other things, Mr. Munson stated that Donaghy, by making these bold allegations to his FBI handlers just prior to his sentencing on July 14, has subjected himself to possible additional felony charges and jail-time should he be found to have lied.

No one in their right mind would lie to the FBI and an army of federal lawyers under these circumstances. It would be akin to poking a stick at a rabid possum while cloistered, naked, in a phone booth.

Munson suggested that if the July 14 sentencing of Donaghy is delayed, that could be evidence to support the existence of a follow-up FBI investigation. I am holding out for the possibility that there is a pernicious lawyer in the Justice Deprtment who is a die-hard Kings fan.

 

[FakeInjury]

i hope Stern keeps up his front. Hes fronting. It's obvious he thinks he has deniability. He does, to an extent. But, when your the president or the leader or the oldest sibling, you are responsible for the people under and around you. He needs to acknowledge the possibility that there is truth behind the allegations. If he doesn't acknowledge "the possibility", then he needs to step down. There is a distict possibility that these allegations are true, and to ingore that possibility is not the job of the NBA Commish. That job belongs to the District Attorney. David Stern is in denial. Which is one of the first stages that help to deal with loss. Loss of control...

 

[sidney]

Did you guys catch this? Amazing

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/1010694.html

Conspiracy theory – NBA fans hoping for a refresher course on Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference finals were left with just their memories Thursday after videos disappeared on YouTube.
The playoff series between the Kings and Los Angeles Lakers resurfaced in headlines Tuesday after disgraced former referee Tim Donaghy alleged in court papers that officials manipulated Game 6.
Video clips of the other games of that playoff series remain uploaded on YouTube, but Game 6 is no longer available through the site.
Where did the infamous game go? YouTube isn't saying.
"We do not comment on individual videos or video sets," a spokesperson said.
And so the conspiracy continues.

 

[VF21]

Hrm. Maybe there's something on there they don't want us to see?

An awful lot of Kings fans have that game on tape, on disk, and indelibly inscribed on their memories. Taking it down from YouTube isn't going to hide a thing.

Be interesting to see if they put it back up.

 

[RKid]

Dont know if it has been posted before, but here is an article written by Bill Simmons after 2002 lakers kings. (He mentioned it on the article he wrote for the Celtics lakers series today)

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020606

Yep. Thanks. Split off into its own thread, as a matter of fact.

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27630

 

[FakeInjury]

"I'm so sorry David Stern. I didn't mean any of it, I was lying about everything." Is what the NBA wants from Donaghy. I think Donaghy is now in the position to bargain with the NBA for certain protections for his family. What he said may still be true, but I don't think it will matter if Donaghy recalls the allegation. This was his last card, and it is out, and it has the potential to be ugly, if he doesn't take it back. The NBA could take it to court, on principle. But, sometimes it's better to know you'll get something for your money. It's a risk assessment. This story, if true, is a ticking bomb. If it's false, its just ticking. Either way, Sacramento is being used. And I would like the know exactly why.

 

[diggining]

I wonder if they have data out there as to which referees made which calls in Game 6. If Donaghy is right, we should find that 2 out of the 3 referees made calls overwhelmingly in favor of one team. Of course, video from game 6 is not exactly easy to find right now...

 

[AleksandarN]

This all about the 1 million dollars in costs the NBA want from Donaghy for their own P.I. work about thier referees. It was a stupid bluff the NBA tried to do. I think Donaghy just nailed back. We will all know the truth in the end. If the NBA do not make public the investigation and drop the law suit we would know that their guiltily. If they make public their findings then we will know he made it up.

 

[Showtime]

Either way you think, it's either a conspiracy about money, or gross incompetence, both of which are unacceptable and inexcusable.

 

[bloom]

This might be off topic but...I know that we might be looking for the 2010 year, but I think this news coming out, whether it's true or not, will allow us to finally move on (I hope). And that way we can start building again and become a fun, exciting team to watch.

 

[bozzwell]

While I am still wearing my tin-foil hat... might as well contribute this to the discussion...

Anyone else thinks that Game 4 of the current finals was called well, with just a few glaring mistakes (relative to an average play off game)? Is there a new edict following latest Donaghy claims to call games _evenly_?

Let's look at the FT's awarded per game:

Game 1 2 3 4 5
LAL 28 10 34 29 31
BOS 35 38 22 28 31

Looking just at FTA's game 4 was the most evenly called. Game 1 close second (the only game in a 7 game series that doesn't need "fixing" to readjust the series).

Just updating my own "stats" for the rest os tin-foil-hat fashionistas.

 

[VF21]

I agree ... Isn't it interesting how the FTs seemed to even out right about the time the whole Donaghy thing blew up in their faces? Coincidence?

Now where's my tin-foil-hat?

 

[Superman]

Hrm. Maybe there's something on there they don't want us to see?

An awful lot of Kings fans have that game on tape, on disk, and indelibly inscribed on their memories. Taking it down from YouTube isn't going to hide a thing.

Be interesting to see if they put it back up.

(Side note: About a month after the game, NBA TV replayed the game, and with about five minutes left in the fourth quarter, the game cut off and NBA Inside Stuff with Ahmad Rashad came on. Honestly. The game cut off in the middle of the fourth quarter and never came back on. I swear. I'll never forget it.)

Anyone who has seen my postings over the years knows that I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I put the screws to conspiracy theorists regularly, and have done so on more than one occasion this season.

That having been said, having all the Game 6 clips pulled from YouTube is consistent with the NBA's ever-apparent desire to make Game 6 just go away. Everyone knows that the Kings got cheated out of that game, whether there was an executive order or not. The NBA has never really addressed that fiasco, and I don't think they ever will. And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they found some legitimate legal reason to have all the Game 6 clips pulled from YouTube. My question is this: Why now?

 

[Ayala11]

Yeah I was also looking on you tube to see the game but I was suprise that it was taken off and all the other games of the Western Conference Final 2002 haven't been taken off.

 

[TR_9]

Yeah I was also looking on you tube to see the game but I was suprise that it was taken off and all the other games of the Western Conference Final 2002 haven't been taken off.

I noticed that too.