More Donaghy -- Alleging NBA Fixed Game 6 Series in 2002?
- Thread starter DirtyAcres
- Start date
- Status
Some nuances that will be overlooked, but I will mention them anyway:
1) The Superstar favoritism claim comes as no real shock. That has been embedded in the league forever, and widely acknowledged.
2) the thing about Yao and the screens...does it amount to anything? Teh allegation is that the league got a complaint, and told the refs to call screens strictly on Yao. Guess that coiuld be called a cheat, but if the direction was to actually enforece the rules correctly, is that a scandal?
3) the allegations about Game 6 of the WCF -- note the claim that two officials known as company men wanted it to go to Game 7. The implication is that because they were company men, they were being directed by the NBA. But there is no direct claim there on the WHY of it, or who was behind it. On their own? NBA? Mafia? Media?
1) The Superstar favoritism claim comes as no real shock. That has been embedded in the league forever, and widely acknowledged.
2) the thing about Yao and the screens...does it amount to anything? Teh allegation is that the league got a complaint, and told the refs to call screens strictly on Yao. Guess that coiuld be called a cheat, but if the direction was to actually enforece the rules correctly, is that a scandal?
3) the allegations about Game 6 of the WCF -- note the claim that two officials known as company men wanted it to go to Game 7. The implication is that because they were company men, they were being directed by the NBA. But there is no direct claim there on the WHY of it, or who was behind it. On their own? NBA? Mafia? Media?
Do we have grounds for a class action lawsuit? Because someone owes me for my pain and suffering !!!!!
Seriously, I'd like to see if he has proof. If nothing else, at least we can shove it back at "Laker fans" that yeah, they win, but only with "help". And have proof this time instead of just common sense.
Because it still hurts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs32qRdmmq4
tech on webber? nothing on Kobe when almost every official would at lesat call that double techs?
tech on webber? nothing on Kobe when almost every official would at lesat call that double techs?
Stern didnt want the Kings in the finals....That would make him less money. Lakers are a big market team with a huge fanbase. Kings come from cowtown.
Commish owes us at least 2 #1 picks for this bull****
I hope proof come's out. Basketball is going to end up faker then wrestling if nothing changes.
Commish owes us at least 2 #1 picks for this bull****
I hope proof come's out. Basketball is going to end up faker then wrestling if nothing changes.
Forgot about this little gem from Nader
Dear Mr. Stern,
At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances.
That sense was severely shaken in the now notorious officiating during Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.
Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6. ...When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games.
This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials.
Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general. When the distinguished basketball writer for USA TODAY, David DuPree, can say: "I've been covering the NBA for 30 years, and it's the poorest officiating in an important game I've ever seen," when Wilbon writes that "The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series would be extended until Sunday; three referees did ..." when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars.
Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically?
In a February interview with David DuPree of USA TODAY, he asked you "Why aren't coaches and players allowed to criticize the referees?" You said, "...we don't want people questioning the integrity of officials. ... It just doesn't pay for us to do anything other than focus people on the game itself rather than the officiating." "Integrity" which we take you to mean "professionalism" of the referees has to be earned and when it is not, it has to be questioned. You and your league have a large and growing credibility problem. Referees are human and make mistakes, but there comes a point that goes beyond any random display of poor performance. That point was reached in Game 6 which took away the Sacramento Kings Western Conference victory.
It seems that you have a choice. You can continue to exercise your absolute power to do nothing. Or you can initiate a review and if all these observers and fans turn out to be right, issue, together with the referees, an apology to the Sacramento Kings and forthrightly admit decisive incompetence during Game 6, especially in the crucial fourth quarter.
You should know, however, that absolute power, if you choose the former course of inaction, invites the time when it is challenged and changed — whether by more withdrawal of fans or by more formal legal or legislative action. No government in our country can lawfully stifle free speech and fine those who exercise it; the NBA under present circumstances can both stifle and fine players and coaches who speak up. There is no guarantee that this tyrannical status quo will remain stable over time, should you refuse to bend to reason and the reality of what occurred. A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs.
We look forward to your considered response.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Shawn McCarthy — Director, League of Fans
Dear Mr. Stern,
At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important, during the public's relaxation time, for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances.
That sense was severely shaken in the now notorious officiating during Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.
Calls by referees in the NBA are likely to be more subjective than in professional baseball or football. But as the judicious and balanced Washington Post sports columnist Michael Wilbon wrote this Sunday, too many of the calls in the fourth quarter (when the Lakers received 27 foul shots) were "stunningly incorrect," all against Sacramento. After noting that the three referees in Game 6 "are three of the best in the game," he wrote: "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad as that in Game 6. ...When Pollard, on his sixth and final foul, didn't as much as touch Shaq. Didn't touch any part of him. You could see it on TV, see it at courtside. It wasn't a foul in any league in the world. And Divac, on his fifth foul, didn't foul Shaq. They weren't subjective or borderline or debatable. And these fouls not only resulted in free throws, they helped disqualify Sacramento's two low-post defenders." And one might add, in a 106-102 Lakers' victory, this officiating took away what would have been a Sacramento series victory in 6 games.
This was not all. The Kobe Bryant elbow in the nose of Mike Bibby, who after lying on the floor groggy, went to the sideline bleeding, was in full view of the referee, who did nothing, prompted many fans to start wondering about what was motivating these officials.
Wilbon discounted any conspiracy theories about the NBA-NBC desire for a Game 7 etc., but unless the NBA orders a review of this game's officiating, perceptions and suspicions, however presently absent any evidence, will abound and lead to more distrust and distaste for the games in general. When the distinguished basketball writer for USA TODAY, David DuPree, can say: "I've been covering the NBA for 30 years, and it's the poorest officiating in an important game I've ever seen," when Wilbon writes that "The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series would be extended until Sunday; three referees did ..." when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars.
Your problem in addressing the pivotal Game 6 situation is that you have too much power. Where else can decision-makers (the referees) escape all responsibility to admit serious and egregious error and have their bosses (you) fine those wronged (the players and coaches) who dare to speak out critically?
In a February interview with David DuPree of USA TODAY, he asked you "Why aren't coaches and players allowed to criticize the referees?" You said, "...we don't want people questioning the integrity of officials. ... It just doesn't pay for us to do anything other than focus people on the game itself rather than the officiating." "Integrity" which we take you to mean "professionalism" of the referees has to be earned and when it is not, it has to be questioned. You and your league have a large and growing credibility problem. Referees are human and make mistakes, but there comes a point that goes beyond any random display of poor performance. That point was reached in Game 6 which took away the Sacramento Kings Western Conference victory.
It seems that you have a choice. You can continue to exercise your absolute power to do nothing. Or you can initiate a review and if all these observers and fans turn out to be right, issue, together with the referees, an apology to the Sacramento Kings and forthrightly admit decisive incompetence during Game 6, especially in the crucial fourth quarter.
You should know, however, that absolute power, if you choose the former course of inaction, invites the time when it is challenged and changed — whether by more withdrawal of fans or by more formal legal or legislative action. No government in our country can lawfully stifle free speech and fine those who exercise it; the NBA under present circumstances can both stifle and fine players and coaches who speak up. There is no guarantee that this tyrannical status quo will remain stable over time, should you refuse to bend to reason and the reality of what occurred. A review that satisfies the fans' sense of fairness and deters future recurrences would be a salutary contribution to the public trust that the NBA badly needs.
We look forward to your considered response.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Shawn McCarthy — Director, League of Fans
I wonder if we can get some reaction on this from guys who were on that team, and from Rick Adelman. I mean, six years later, I wonder what they think about that game now...
Remember Ralph Nader's letter, asking for an investigation into that game? I wonder what he has to say about this now... (Edit: Thanks, DirtyAcres. I was just getting ready to go find that.)
:: sighs ::
As Brick said, it's obvious that Donaghy is trying to play the game to keep from having to do three years in the clink, and this is the game you use to get the reaction you want. But what kind of proof could there possibly be? I mean, there's no DNA proof, like there would be for a steroid allegation. There's no e-mails or recorded phone calls.
All there really is is the film of the game, and it's obvious that the game wasn't called fairly, but is that proof enough that the fix was in? If someone watched that game today, trying to be objective, would they think that the game had been fixed?
(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.)
Remember Ralph Nader's letter, asking for an investigation into that game? I wonder what he has to say about this now... (Edit: Thanks, DirtyAcres. I was just getting ready to go find that.)
:: sighs ::
As Brick said, it's obvious that Donaghy is trying to play the game to keep from having to do three years in the clink, and this is the game you use to get the reaction you want. But what kind of proof could there possibly be? I mean, there's no DNA proof, like there would be for a steroid allegation. There's no e-mails or recorded phone calls.
All there really is is the film of the game, and it's obvious that the game wasn't called fairly, but is that proof enough that the fix was in? If someone watched that game today, trying to be objective, would they think that the game had been fixed?
(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.)
I'm sorry, but this is really big. Ya, they're just claims, but I highly doubt Donaghy would want to lie and get into more trouble. He's going to confess to everything.
I'm feeling very good about being right for so many years, but I will only feel satisfied if the championship gets revoked, an apology from the NBA, and every laCker fan knowing about this.
Wow, I'm really sad. This is pathetic.
I'm feeling very good about being right for so many years, but I will only feel satisfied if the championship gets revoked, an apology from the NBA, and every laCker fan knowing about this.
Wow, I'm really sad. This is pathetic.
Well the beauty of such a claim, based on the previously existing pop culture suspicions, is that he pretty much CAN'T be caught lying. Its the sort of lie that I could make, or you, and nobody could prove the allegations wrong, anymore than they can prove them true.
Which doesn't mean he IS lying. Just means that he could easily be doing so with everything to gain (less tie in the pokey) and almost no way for these sorts of allegations to be disproven. Slime anyone and everyone, and see if you can catch a break. And nobody has ever said the man had a shred of honor (hence the hot water he has found himself in).
Which doesn't mean he IS lying. Just means that he could easily be doing so with everything to gain (less tie in the pokey) and almost no way for these sorts of allegations to be disproven. Slime anyone and everyone, and see if you can catch a break. And nobody has ever said the man had a shred of honor (hence the hot water he has found himself in).
I have tried for a very long time to be the voice of reason, to point out we still could have won game 7, etc.
But bottom line is, like a lot of you, I've never forgotten the pain of watching Vlade foul out and then Scot, with arms outstretched, protesting "But my arms are in the air!" as he was sent to the bench.
There is no way to make this right, if it is true. But if it is finally brought out into the open, then at least I can live with knowing it wasn't our imagination.
But bottom line is, like a lot of you, I've never forgotten the pain of watching Vlade foul out and then Scot, with arms outstretched, protesting "But my arms are in the air!" as he was sent to the bench.
There is no way to make this right, if it is true. But if it is finally brought out into the open, then at least I can live with knowing it wasn't our imagination.
Not to distract from the thing about the Kings (which definitely sucks if true)
He also accused the league of ordering officials to change how to officiate the Rockets-mavs playoff series a few years ago after Cuban complained and after Van Gundy said publically that an unnamed official told him that the league had ordered officials to change how they officiate Yao Ming.
He also accused the league of ordering officials to change how to officiate the Rockets-mavs playoff series a few years ago after Cuban complained and after Van Gundy said publically that an unnamed official told him that the league had ordered officials to change how they officiate Yao Ming.
- Status