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

BritishColumbia · Oct 30, 2009

VF21 said:

That's not true. We all wanna believe that NBA is legit. However, there is a chance that something was/is smelly. NBA is 1) Business; 2) Entertainment; 3) Sport. I hope this world crisis taught non-business people that even big-time businesses cheat and lie. I am surprised that some people are still surprised.

There are several ways how to react for us:

- NBA is a fraud. Hate it. Knew it. Not gonna watch it anymore. IMO, this is a very stupid way to react because we do not have any proofs. We have doubts and suspicions but nothing has been officially proved with the exception of the Donaghy scandal.

- NBA is legit. I like watching it and I do not wanna hear/believe in anything bad. I wanna stay in nirvana. Again, it is very naive to assume that everything is nice and neat. We already know that sh*t happens in NBA (the Donaghy scandal).

- I am a NBA fan. I wanna enjoy it but I wanna enjoy a clean competition.
Unfortunately, NBA has stuff that is not cute (not only NBA of course) - obvious big market favoritism, star player favoritism, referees shut their eyes to some stuff to make game more fun to watch (traveling etc.). So, we know that it is not absolutely clean already.

The question is IS NBA INVOLVED IN SOMETHING REALLY SMELLY? As for now, I think that the answer is NO. May be because I do not wanna believe in it but also because we do not have real proofs on hands. We just cannot accuse the organization and people without evidences. BUT we must listen!!! Even to Donaghy. We doubt, therefore we think, therefore we are. Again, a Serie A case gave us a nice lesson.

Superman · Oct 30, 2009

VF21 said:

That's definitely the extremist viewpoint. One can acknowledge a game or series being "tampered with" without condemning the entire league or sport as fraudulent. You can look at a questionable result in a game that had huge financial ramifications for the NBA -- especially in the context of the 2002 WCF -- and see how the NBA would benefit from forcing a seventh game, and then, with the Kings at home for instance, they still have a chance to win the series. It doesn't necessarily mean that every game is fixed and there's no competition, but it's hard to believe that the NBA is completely clean.

My opinion of this game has changed over the years. I used to believe that it was just horrible, horrible officiating, no fix. Then I started to think that maybe it was a make-up game because Shaq was on the bench for so long in Game 5, but the bad calls didn't start until the fourth quarter. Now, I'm starting to think that it was simple: Get the Lakers to Game 7, one way or the other.

It doesn't help the NBA that they don't acknowledge their mistakes. Rajon Rondo nearly takes Brad Miller's head off in the playoffs last year during one of the best early round series of all time, and the NBA finds some specious way to defend the call. Everyone who looks at the play knows that, based on the way refs call flagrant fouls, that was a flagrant foul. But if you give the Bulls two shots and the ball, it has the potential to nail the game down for them, and it looks like the refs gave them the game. What happened is that the Bulls got screwed, and everyone who follows the NBA knows it. Had David Stern and Stu Jackson gone on TV and acknowledged the bad call, it would have been no big deal. Instead, they decide to defend an obviously wrong call, insulting the intelligence of basketball fans across the country.

Contrast that with the NFL. Mike Pereira, VP of Officiating, goes on NFL Network every week and discusses questionable calls. He breaks them down, explains the rule and the interpretation of the rule, and explains why the call was made. And when there's a bad call, he admits it. So when Ed Hochuli blows it in Week 1 last season and literally costs the Chargers a game, both Pereira and Goodell -- and Hochuli himself -- acknowledge the mistake, apologize for it, and look for ways to fix a flawed rule. They don't cover it up.

The NBA, including David Stern, Stu Jackson, and all of their officials, have no credibility, primarily because they don't admit even their most obvious mistakes. I don't remember the NBA ever admitting that a ref made a bad call. Closest thing I can think of is instituting replay after the 2002 playoffs because of a number of shots that were either waived off or called good in error. Fans can handle refs missing calls. They can't handle being lied to about it. It became obvious after the Joey Crawford spectacle a couple years ago that some of these guys are power hungry and ego driven, yet the NBA won't remove any of them. When a player or coach criticizes the officiating, they are slapped with a fine. But Joey Crawford is still an NBA referee.

Now, of course, Donaghy has no credibility either. He was busted for illegal gambling and conspiring with the mob. He's a liar, a cheat, and a criminal. He has no evidence to support any of his claims. He's vindictive, to say the least. But I can't just ignore what he's saying. Number one, it makes sense, when you think about it. These aren't wild, off the wall accusations that fly in the face of reason. I don't think anyone has a hard time believing that Steve Javie hates Allen Iverson. Perhaps some of them are exaggerated (like Bavetta paying an airline employee to recite to him everything that the announcers say about him during a game), but he's not exactly claiming that Danny Crawford is a cross-dressing pedophile.

Number two, when Jose Canseco named names in 2005, everyone associated with baseball turned their noses up at him. "He's crazy", everyone said. And, based on what we know of him, he probably is. But his claims are being proven, one by one. McGwire, Palmeiro, Giambi, Pudge, A-Rod ... all of them used steroids. The Mitchell report comes out and actually supports his assertions. It's a cautionary tale, like the boy who cried wolf. We all hope that he's lying, but our jaws hit the floor when we realize that he wasn't. You can't just ignore him.

pdxKingsFan · Oct 30, 2009

Even baseball where the umps have the largest amount of discretion has been doing a better job lately by dumping all the umps that blew calls in the playoffs from the World Series crew. The NBA really should open their refs up for more accountability.

And I remember it like you do Supes, nobody wanted to believe Canseco. Though I think his initial revalations were before 2005 because Caminiti also came out around the same time Canseco first did saying everyone was on the juice and nobody wanted to believe him either and he died in 2004. Its one thing to find a scapegoat like Barry Bonds who has been a jerk to the media his entire career and is easily painted as a villain, but when its league wide the denial came into play.

Superman · Oct 30, 2009

pdxKingsFan said:

Yeah, I remembered Canseco saying this stuff a long time before, but it's documented in 2005 with "Juiced". Caminiti is on record, but he didn't write a book about it. Canseco was derided like a fat kid with no friends when he wrote that book, and now, he's writing "Vindicated". Wonder what the reaction is going to be to that...

pdxKingsFan · Oct 30, 2009

He's actually writing a book called "Vindicated"??? Is he 12?

King Baller · Oct 30, 2009

pdxKingsFan said:

No, but he will make a few shekels out of acting like he is

KB

Superman · Oct 30, 2009

pdxKingsFan said:

It's actually already out: http://www.amazon.com/Vindicated-Names-Liars-Battle-Baseball/dp/1416591877

HighTopKicks · Oct 30, 2009

VF21 said:

Is an axe murderer who points out his accomplice not to be believed because he’s an axe murderer?

Maybe not, if it's only his word, but sometimes circumstancial evidence is enough proof.

Mr. S£im Citrus · Oct 30, 2009

HighTopKicks said:

I hope, if I ever stand trial, you're not on my jury...

Superman · Oct 30, 2009

Mr. S£im Citrus said:

There's a much different burden of proof in this situation than there would be in a criminal trial. The only way the NBA will be considered clean in this regard is going to be to prove that they are clean. It's really the opposite.

swisshh · Oct 30, 2009

VF21 said:

I think it is important here to make a distinction between games being rigged and games being highly influenced. Rigging would require cooperation from players within the game or coaches. I think most believe the games are highly influenced, to a point where all but the greatest display of basketball from one side can not fully deter a favored outcome. I remember the T-Wolves in a round one series overcoming an obvious display of favoritism towards a star studded Lakers team to win a very close game. Most often though, those sort of amazing "make every shot" sort of displays do not occur.

So it is not impossible to overcome the officials, it is just highly improbable.

Gary · Oct 30, 2009

It reminds me a lot of Jose Canseco's book.. At the time he wrote it he really didn't have anything to lose, and already had burned his bridges so he called out people that were using steroids. So far pretty much everything he said in that book was true, right?

Same goes for Donaghy.. I don't think he's lying. I believe him because he's got nothing to lose and is already at the bottom. I bet he feels a bit betrayed by others who didn't get fired for fixing games, and he is calling them out.

The Kings were robbed in game 6 and I know nothing will bring it back but it's nice to have people admitting there was a fix.

Oprostaj · Oct 30, 2009

Great post up there Supes, totally agree. Not sure why VF can't settle somewhere in the middle of "It's all bull spit" and "Nothing is wrong" but the majority of fans are true fans who want to believe that the best competitor will win, but who understand the situation and view it with a grain of salt. There have been so many instances even without game 6 that will make you laugh when you watch them a couple of times. The Rajon Rondo faul on Miller was so blatant you would have to be borderline mentaly retarded (medical term, not derogatory) not to see it. That was followed by Rondo thuggishly THROWING Hinrich into the scorer's table - again, nothing. Crawford threw Tim Duncan out of the game for laughing. Read that sentence back to yourself.

Superman · Oct 30, 2009

Oprostaj said:

And in a pivotal playoff game last year, who is the crew chief?

http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=290423006

I'm not saying the NBA wanted to determine the outcome of that game, but why would Joey Crawford EVER work another Spurs game? I don't think he should be back in the NBA; when they suspended him, I hoped it was the start of them holding their referees accountable. But he's back, and on the court calling a Spurs game.

And then Stern hires a retired Army general to oversee the officiating, and tells the rest of us to "go back to work, there's nothing to see here." Unbelievable. It's like the NBA doesn't understand that they have a huge public relations problem on their hands. It's not the calls that bother me; it's the lack of accountability. I mean, I hate it when people aren't competent enough to handle their jobs, but being a basketball referee is a tough gig, and it gets harder the more athletic the players get. There are going to be missed calls. But you don't hold your referees accountable; in fact, you shield them from criticism, which only feeds the monster. It fans the "what does the NBA have to hide?" flames. For a guy who is credited with saving the NBA, Stern doesn't get such a simple issue. MLB is probably the least progressive professional sports league in this country, holding on to past ideals that don't serve the sport in the 21st century, but even they have taken action when an officiating crew isn't doing their job. Stern just doesn't get it.

/facepalm

swisshh · Oct 30, 2009

Another interesting handling of the officials was what happened after the USA team got exposed in international play. The following NBA season the league made a point of calling traveling. What isn't said by this 'memo' is that they weren't calling traveling. That was the implied mistake that the NBA avoids saying. So, for a year, the NBA actually tries to call traveling and all the rules, because the NBA stars got so use to traveling and bailout calls that they got exposed as buffoons in international play.

A season passes, and traveling calls go back to how they were and now they just altered the traveling rules. They attempted to fix up a glaring issue that olympic play exposed, but it was too tall an order so they just gave up on it. They'd rather let the stars travel.

VF21 · Oct 30, 2009

Oprostaj said:

Great post up there Supes, totally agree. Not sure why VF can't settle somewhere in the middle of "It's all bull spit" and "Nothing is wrong" but the majority of fans are true fans who want to believe that the best competitor will win, but who understand the situation and view it with a grain of salt. There have been so many instances even without game 6 that will make you laugh when you watch them a couple of times. The Rajon Rondo faul on Miller was so blatant you would have to be borderline mentaly retarded (medical term, not derogatory) not to see it. That was followed by Rondo thuggishly THROWING Hinrich into the scorer's table - again, nothing. Crawford threw Tim Duncan out of the game for laughing. Read that sentence back to yourself.

Care to rephrase that as a question to me? If you do, I'll try my best to answer...

bibbinator · Oct 30, 2009

Well put, Superman.

Oprostaj · Oct 31, 2009

VF21 said:

in all the posts ive read of yours you seem on the extreme side. meaning, you are either for it 100%, or against it 100%. For example, i believe that Tim is speaking a lot of truth, although I'm sure there are lies within because nobody except him can prove it. You seem to believe that he is not to be trusted. Again, this is from skimming the thread. I personally do not know you well enough to know your true opinion, nor care, hence why I did not pose the question to you - it was an observation. it's a message board - place for opinions to be read and reviewed, disected, laughed at, respected and so on. seeing how i'm relatively knew here, I refrain from posting specific questions to members or commenting on specific people unless I feel strongly one way or another. Example - i thought Supes post above (the long one) was great. So I said "yay supes".

my comment was in no way meant to be a backhanded jab at you. if i ever have a problem with you, or a question to ask you, i will let you know. again... public message board

Superman · Nov 2, 2009

Charley Rosen's opinion

Straight shooting

While I personally believe that Donaghy's testimonies contain too many specifics to be entirely false, I do find some strange aspects of the whole business.

Regarding Random House's decision not to release "Blowing the Whistle" just a few days before its scheduled publication: It certainly appears that the veracity of Donaghy's charges was not vetted by Random House when the book was in manuscript form or in uncorrected galleys. Are we to believe that not until tens of thousands of dollars were spent printing and binding thousands of copies of the book, as well as designing and printing all of the covers, that the publisher's lawyers suddenly expressed misgivings about the contents?

This is absurd.

And yet, if the NBA has indeed never threatened to sue, then what could possibly explain Random House's negligent waste of so much money?

Strange.

He later goes on to blame the Kings' Game 6 loss on Chris Webber for missing "several 5-foot, uncontested jump hooks he attempted in the endgame." I don't remember Webber taking too many shots at the end of the game there. Maybe he's thinking about Game 4? Or maybe this is just another example of reputations never dying. Either way, he's wrong. No jump hook is ever uncontested; the only reason to shoot a jump hook is if a defender is on your hip. Secondly, from five feet, uncontested, a nearly seven foot power forward will dunk, not shoot a jump hook. Third, Webber nearly had a triple-double in that game and shot 12-22, while the rest of the starters shot a combined 17-51 (33%). Rosen is full of ****.

Edit: Here's the play-by-play of the game. Webber was 4-7 in the fourth quarter: missed a 21 footer, a layup (which he tipped in on the rebound), and a 10 foot hook shot.

Superman · Nov 2, 2009

82games.com Reviews the game

[SIZE=-1]Yes at a glance you can see the Lakers got some advantage from the calls down the stretch, but if Bavetta was really trying to rig the game, would he have called a tie up jump ball at the 3:26 mark (and subsequently had a bad toss that gave the ball to the Kings) with the Kings ahead by two when he could have called a foul on Divac? Would he have called the foul on Fisher at 1:27 that helped bring the Kings back within a point with plenty of time left? Would he have called the blocking foul on Fox with 0:20 when an offensive foul would have basically sealed the game? Doubtful.

...

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Chris Webber was a special player[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] As one of the hall of fame types who never won a championship we may not give him full credit for his talents. Watch this game and you'll see him in a different light. If you think Steve Nash is the king of the out of nowehere pass, Webber made probably close to ten behind the back bounce passes in this game, many leading to easy baskets/open looks that were delivered right on the money. He also showed leadership throughout and hit some key shots at moments when the Kings started to struggle. Throw in some nice defensive moments, solid rebounding, and he was indeed a superstar. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]

Superman · Nov 2, 2009

Bill Simmons immediately after the 2002 WCF ended:

Question: What was the most disturbing subplot of the playoffs?
Answer: The officiating, also the most disturbing subplot of the past four playoffs. If you examine the last four NBA playoff campaigns, during every situation where the league definitively "needed" one of the two teams involved to win -- either to A) change the momentum of a series so it didn't end prematurely, B) keep an attractive, big-market team alive in a series, or C) advance an attractive, big-market team to another round -- the officiating appeared to be slanted towards the team that needed that game. I use the phrase "appeared to be," because reviewing an official's performance is purely subjective. Maybe I'm dead-wrong.

These were just the games that jump out in my mind (again, I could be wrong):

1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 3 ... LJ sinks a game-winning four-pointer (called a continuation foul by referee Jess Kersey even though LJ was fouled a full second before he released the ball).

1999, Knicks-Pacers, Game 6 ... Knicks last chance to close out Indy before the series shifts back to Indiana for Game 7 ... they get every call.

1999, Spurs-Knicks, Game 3 ... down 2-0, the Knicks get every call in their first home game and win their only game of the series.

2000, Knicks-Heat, Game 7 ... Knicks advance to the conference finals ... falling out of bounds, Latrell Sprewell awarded a timeout by referee Bennett Salvatore with 2.1 seconds left even though none of the Knicks called for one ... Sprewell admits after the game that he hadn't called a timeout ... the Miami players chase the referees off the court after the game, yelling that they had been robbed ... after the game, Jamal Mashburn tells reporters, "They had three officials in their pocket" and Tim Hardaway refers to referee Dick Bavetta as "Knick Bavetta."

2000, Lakers-Blazers, Game 7 ... LA shoots 21 more free throws and rallies back from a 17-point deficit in the final seven minutes ... Shaq plays an illegal defense down the stretch, undaunted ... Rasheed Wallace absolutely gets manhandled down the stretch, yet doesn't get a single call ... up by four with 25 seconds left, Shaq body-blocks Steve Smith out of bounds and the refs don't make the call (the most egregious non-call in recent memory).

2002, Celtics-Nets, Game 4 ... Celts up 2-1 ... the Nets are inexplicably allowed to push and shove Kenny Anderson and Pierce while they dribble the ball ... a number of head-scratchers go against Boston, including three offensive charges down the stretch ... four different "bull-(bleep)" chants during the game.

2002, Lakers-Kings, Game 6 ... LA needs a win to stay alive ... from an officiating standpoint, the most one-sided game of the past decade ... at least six dubious calls against the Kings in the fourth quarter alone ... LA averaged 22 free throws a game during the first five games of the series, then attempted 27 freebies in the fourth quarter alone of Game 6 ... rumors that David Stern wanted to pull a Vince McMahon and declare himself "The special guest referee" for this game prove unfounded.

(By the way, I would feel remiss if I didn't share this information: Dick Bavetta was assigned to every one of the above games. That's an absolute fact. You can look it up. Doesn't mean anything ... I just felt the need to pass that along. It sure looks bad, doesn't it? Maybe the league could do a favor for Bavetta and not assign him to Game 3 of the Finals, especially if the Lakers jump to a 2-0 lead over New Jersey. You wouldn't want to rile up those conspiracy theorists or anything. Ummmm ...)

Simmons is an unabashed and shameless Celtics fan = Laker hater. Just a disclaimer.

JeffZX · Jan 25, 2010

NBA referee Donaghy - NBA manipulated Game 6 of Kings/Lakers Western Conference Final

In "Personal Foul", former NBA referee Tim Donaghy states that "the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and Kings presented a stunning example of game and series manipulation at its ugliest......as soon as the referees assigned to the game were chosen (Dick Bavetta, Bob Delaney, and Ted Bernhardt) the rest of us knew immediately that there would be a game 7. A prolonged series was good for the league, good for the networks, and good for the game.....and it was great for the big-market, star-studded Los Angeles Lakers.

In the pregame meeting prior to game 6, the league office sent down word that certain calls - calls that would have benefitted the Lakers - were being missed by the referees. This was the type of not-so-subtle information that I and other referees were left to interpret. After receiving the dispatch, Bavetta talked openly about that the fact that the league wanted a game 7. 'If we give the benefit of the calls to the team that's down in the series, nobody's going to complain. The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win game 7,' Bavetta said.

As history shows......the Lakers were repeatedly sent to the foul line by the referees. For other referees watching the game on television, it was a shameful performance by Bavetta's crew, one of the most poorly officiated games of all time. NBA Star Grant Hill later stated on national television that Bavetta was known for extending playoff series.....This game wasn't stolen by a quiet thief in the night. It was no less than an armed robbery in broad daylight.....most of my colleagues and I were convinced Sacramento was robbed of the Western Conference title.....there was another person who clearly understood Bavetta's role in the Game 6 debacle. A Sacramento fan had a Lakers jersey with the name "Bavetta" printed boldly on the back. The fan angrily held up the jersey every time Bavetta reffed a game in Sacramento, and it pissed him off to no end."

JeffZX · Jan 25, 2010

Points going to Donaghy's credibility is that he names names and is specific to instances. And he told all of this under oath to Federal Prosecutors. Some of his comments are quite libelous to specific individuals, which would leave him open to a civil law suit if untrue. If not true, these specific individuals or instances could be refuted or law suits could be filed. Have they?

One way to assess his credibility is to ask Grant Napear to confirm or deny the following nefarious reports of the NBA dealing with team announcers:

"The NBA actually has a guy in the East Coast office listening to everything the announcers say. If he hears something that isn't good, he'll call the truck and relay the message. For example, if an announcer is discussing a rule incorrectly or saying stuff that is out of whack, the NBA will be on the phone to the production staff in the truck and the message will get to the announcer within moments. The announcer knew that every word they spoke was being monitored by the league."

Since Grant is not shy about pointing out faults in NBA referees and lamenting the quality of the refs, if this is true I would think he would have heard from the NBA. Has anybody or could somebody call Grant's radio show and ask him if he has been contacted by the NBA during the course of a game, or if he knows of other announcers who have received such calls? I think it could help assess the credibility of Donaghy's book; that is, if Grant is not precluded from speaking the truth. I would appreciate if Grant's response could be posted to this forum.

FaStRmAn · Jan 25, 2010

Showtime said:

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! They have to to protect the game. Since Donaghy cant prove any of his claims, he can't publish the book. If it is so false, why is Stern threatening to sue if it is published??? If you want to preserve the "Integrity of the Game" in your minds, I can see how you would refuse to input this information into your data banks. But not only is the information plausible, it is credible and reliable. He was a gambler! He wasn't a drug addict or some kind of nut job wacko!! There is no reason for him to lie at this point...

Dick Bavetta is as corrupt as Donaghy ever will be. I have watched DICK referee TOO many games to know that he isn't Manipulating the game to justify a means. I believe Donaghy's story, and the story of the other 2 refs toeing the line and doing as they were told. I think that David Stern is the most corrupt owner in the world of professional sports. I still watch the games, but only in a WWE fashion. The games are fixed. If you can look me in the eye and say that David Stern is without any guilt, that you believe the other refs and not the FBI agents assigned to investigate this matter, ignore the statistical data compiled to prove that Dick Bavetta did indeed influence important games up to and including playoff games, then I will believe that YOU believe in the integrity of the game. But too many shadows of doubt have been cast for me to just put my head in the sand and say everything is fine... nothing to panic about... the world is Pollyanna and nothing sinister or criminal every occurs on this grand a scale. Those that believe that 2002 was a slap in the face to Sacramento will always believe we were wronged. Those that believe it just happened that way all I can say is WOW, enjoy your Pollyanna lives...Because for ME there is TOO much information to ignore....More than just this book by a defrocked ref..

Oprostaj · Jan 25, 2010

A lot of truth, albeit in a appocalyptic fashion. The refs are so bad it is comical. Bavetta is not the only one. It is a tough sport to officiate, no doubt... but what we've seen equals a sideshow. It's really taken the fun out of it for me, even though I will never stop watching. I just feel like I need a shower after some games. I understand people discredit Donaghy, because he stood to personally gain from the "inside info", but some stuff is just so obvious you kind of just have to believe it. And Stern is laughing about it, knowing nobody will do anything, and will keep paying to watch it.

BonziFan · Jan 25, 2010

FaStRmAn said:

It got published. It was released in December. I purchased a copy.

TheFifthMookie · Jan 25, 2010

BonziFan said:

so how was it?

Trueblood · Jan 25, 2010

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?

BonziFan · Jan 25, 2010

TheFifthMookie said:

I thought it was really good. I finished it in 3 days. It truly kept my interest throughout. I found the emotional struggle with his family very interesting. I didnt know that his dad was a highly regarded college official.

All that being said i took everything with a grain of salt as his story has not been backed. I will say I tend to lean on the side of believing him.

cstorm · Jan 25, 2010

Trueblood said:

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'.

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

Bench

All-Star

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary

All-Star

So Ordinary That It's Truly Quite Extraordinary

All-Star

All-Star

Bench

Doryphore of KingsFans.com

All-Star

Starter

All-Star

Bench

All-Star

Starter

Super Moderator Emeritus

Bench

Bench

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

G-League

G-League

Starter

Bench

G-League

Bench

Bench

G-League

Bench