More Donaghy (From Portland Weekly)

pdxKingsFan

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary
Staff member
So, I'm about to have lunch, ran down to pick up one of the alt-weeklies and see an interview with Donaghy, glance through it (haven't read it all yet) and see he's selling Portland the same bill of goods he is selling us, of course in Portland's case it isn't Dick Bavetta but Steve Javie who is the evil ref.

Anyhow like I said, I haven't read it all, but its available online for those who are interested on either side of the "is he trustworthy" debate.

http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3626/13989/
 
Wasn't 2003 the year Webber blew out his knee against the Mavs? That's one thing I don't blame on the refs.

Yes, so I think that might be a misspeak or misprint. Obviously, 2001-02 season was debacle against the Lakers that Donaghy emplies in his book was "fixed."
 
I've read before that the FBI did say they checked out all the stuff that he claimed and he didn't lie. If he provides proof that he also passed a lie detector test on these claims, then really you have to believe him.
 
Didn't want to start a seperate thread but here's Donaghy continuing to plug his book saying flat out 2003 Kings were clonned out of NBA championship because league favored select stars with manipulated outcomes through dictating certain calls be made, etc.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/111701/index.html?eref=sihp


That's really not as sensationalistic a claim as its made out to be. And Donaghy knows it -- he plays it close to the vest here "alleging" things that everybody already knows, and then throwing on the "but the league office was using this process to intentionally twist outcomes" bit. Which is of course the thing that nobody can prove or disprove, but he can sell his book with.
 
I've read before that the FBI did say they checked out all the stuff that he claimed and he didn't lie. If he provides proof that he also passed a lie detector test on these claims, then really you have to believe him.

Lie detector tests are subjective; there's a reason they're not admissible in most criminal trials. They can be beaten. So just because a person passes a polygraph doesn't mean that they are necessarily telling the truth.
 
Lie detector tests are subjective; there's a reason they're not admissible in most criminal trials. They can be beaten. So just because a person passes a polygraph doesn't mean that they are necessarily telling the truth.


Also, a person who fails a polygraph test may not be lying. None of the body signals that tip off a lie detector test allow a human to "lie better," they are common nervous reactions related to the fight or flight reflex. Usually the follow up questions are more useful for uncovering the truth.
 
he was on the radio in Dallas during the first round and they had him predict 8 games from the first round based on the referee crews... He went 8-0 on winners. Apparently after that the NBA got the FBI involved and he pretty much was forced to stop picking (which was pretty boneheaded in the first place)
 
Lie detector tests are subjective; there's a reason they're not admissible in most criminal trials. They can be beaten. So just because a person passes a polygraph doesn't mean that they are necessarily telling the truth.

"It's not a lie...if you believe it"

george_costanza.jpg
 
Lie detector tests are subjective; there's a reason they're not admissible in most criminal trials. They can be beaten. So just because a person passes a polygraph doesn't mean that they are necessarily telling the truth.


It can be beaten on very rare occasions. But the chance of the test being accurate is much much higher than the chance of person actually being able to beat it. Thats a fact. The FBI's report also said their findings shows Donaghy didn't lie. Of course, some people can still choose to believe what they want to believe.
 
Back
Top