Chauncey Billups, Damon Jones, and Terry Rozier Arrested as Part of a Wide-Ranging, Two-Pronged Federal Illegal Gambling Investigation
Three people with NBA connections--Hall of Fame player/Portland coach Chauncey Billups, former player Damon Jones, and current player Terry Rozier--have been arrested by the FBI in connection with a widespread, years-long, two-pronged probe into illegal gambling that allegedly involved multiple Mafia families, including Bonanno, Gambino, Genovese, and Lucchese. The NBA placed Billups and Rozier on leave. Tiago Splitter will be Portland's coach until further notice. Billups, Jones, Rozier, and the other people who have been arrested and charged are innocent until proven guilty, but it is important to understand what is being alleged and the wider implications if the allegations are true.
One prong of the allegations is that the Mafia paid Billups and Jones to act as "face cards" to lure wealthy individuals to high-stakes poker games that were rigged with elaborate, sophisticated technology. This allegation does not appear to have a wider implication for the NBA; if Billups and Jones are guilty, then their NBA careers are over and they will face legal consequences, but their alleged activities had no connection to the NBA beyond the fact that being associated with the NBA made Billups and Jones wealthy enough and well known enough to be useful for the Mafia.
The second prong of the allegations is that the Mafia paid Jones and Rozier to provide insider information for use on wagering. The second prong is connected with the Jontay Porter matter. The NBA banned Jontay Porter for life in 2024 after he pleaded guilty to prematurely leaving two NBA games so that "under" prop bets would win. Porter is the first NBA player banned for violating gambling rules since Jack Molinas, who the NBA banned for his role in the infamous point shaving scandal that almost destroyed college basketball. Molinas was selected to play in the 1954 NBA All-Star Game, but was replaced by Andy Phillip and Molinas never played again in the NBA.
In 2007, former NBA referee Tim Donaghy pleaded guilty to two felony charges pertaining to wire fraud and transmitting wagers related to games that he officiated. Despite widespread speculation, in depth investigations by both the federal government and the NBA produced no evidence that Donaghy point shaved or fixed games. In my recap of the Donaghy scandal, I warned about the dangers of legalized gambling:
...the advent of widespread, legalized betting on NBA games opens up the
potential for a large number of problems; as the ESPN writer noted,
citing some research done on this issue, the more money that is added to
this situation the greater the likelihood for wrongdoing and scandal.
Just look at the recent Anthony Davis melodrama; is he going to play, is
he not going to play, is he going to play hard, is the team going to
play him in the fourth quarter--there are numerous ways for one or more
unscrupulous parties to manipulate the point spreads for New Orleans'
Pelicans' games. Then you have the issue of rest (or "load management,"
the new catchphrase for sitting out otherwise healthy players), not to
mention the issue of tanking. What if someone is able to get the inside
scoop about which stars are going to rest for which games, or which
teams decided to tank 10 games before the general public could tell that
those teams are tanking? The NBA's recent embrace of widespread
legalized gambling is fraught with peril.
The Porter case and the allegations against Jones and Rozier are exactly the type of situations that I warned about. Legalized gambling is a major threat not just to the NBA but to professional (and college) sports in general, as Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder noted decades ago:
Gambling should be made difficult for
the average man. It should be something he budgets to do once or twice a
year. Vegas was best when it was hardest to reach.
You
see, it isn't the two or three percent, the house edge, that beats you.
Otherwise, people would only lose two or three percent, and so what?
It's the psychology. A guy goes to a casino. He wins $500, he's
ecstatic. He goes home, buys his wife a present, springs for a night
out. Fine. Now he goes back. This time he loses $500. O.K., altogether
he's even. But does he quit $500 down the way he did $500 up? No. He
takes another $500 out of the bank. And now he's pressing, so he blows
that and borrows $500. Now he's out $1,500, and this is a guy who only
makes 20 to 25 grand a year. He goes home, gets into his wife's checking
account.
This is what happens when gambling is too accessible.
Everybody gets hurt but the casino. The guy can't buy the new summer
suit or the new shoes for his wife. He lets the tune-up go. The stores
are hurt, the restaurant, the gas station. This is the kind of stuff
you'll start to see soon at Atlantic City.
And if they legalized
sports betting, the little guy would be just as dead. We'd find a way
to beat you. Right now, if we—me, anybody—tried to bet more than $50,000
on any game, we'd have a hard time. And when you only got $50 riding,
you can't pay enough to fix a game. Put a pencil to it. But with
legalized gambling, there'd be so much money bet you could get down a
million or more on one game. So now it's worth it to pay for a fix,
isn't it? And that's easy. You don't need the quarterback. Just gimme
the center. Gimme the referee. All I'd need is one offside at the right
time. You don't even need to get a guy to throw it for you. Suppose we
just pay a big star $50,000 to stay home with the flu? Nobody ever
thought of that before, did they?
I don't buy the argument that behavior and morality cannot be legislated and that people simply have to be responsible for their decisions; gambling has been proven to be addictive, so making an addictive activity easily accessible to the majority of the population will inevitably lead not only to scandals but also to a public health crisis, even if the ramifications of that public health crisis are not immediately apparent. A lot of people are losing a lot of money that they cannot afford to lose and that they would not be losing if gambling were not so widely accessible, and this is going to destroy families. Ultimately, we will all pay for this looming public health crisis, both financially and emotionally as the damage ripples throughout society.
I also don't buy the argument that widespread legalized gambling makes gambling easier to monitor and regulate; in contrast, and as Snyder noted, widespread legalized gambling incentivizes cheating while also making cheating harder to detect. In addition to a public health crisis compounded by honest gamblers losing money because of point shaving and other shenanigans, we have already seen and heard about threats made against athletes by gamblers who lost money because of how well (or how poorly) athletes performed. Will it take someone injuring or killing an athlete over a wager for society to understand the dangers?
I am not suggesting that all wagering should be banned, but I think that wagering should be much more restricted than it is, and I think that sports leagues and their media partners should not be in the business of promoting wagering. Of course, the reforms that I am proposing are unlikely to happen because the leagues and their media partners are making a lot of money off of this misery and they will not voluntarily give up that money.
Labels: Chauncey Billups, Damon Jones, FBI, gambling, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, NBA, Terry Rozier, Tim Donaghy
posted by David Friedman @ 8:52 PM
"Untold: Malice at the Palace" Does Not Tell the Whole Story
The Netflix documentary "Untold: Malice at the Palace" purports to tell the "untold" story of perhaps one of the most "re-told" basketball events of the past two decades: the melee that took place on November 19, 2004 in the Palace of Auburn Hills after a "fan" named John Green threw a cup that hit Indiana Pacers forward Ron Artest, who jumped up from his reclining position on the scorer's table and bolted into the stands to confront the person who he thought had assaulted him (Artest's initial target was, in fact, not the person who had thrown the cup). Artest's teammate Stephen Jackson followed him into the stands, "fans" threw objects at players, players hit fans, and the NBA took a figurative black eye as players and fans attempted to inflict literal black eyes (and worse) against each other in a nationally televised game that featured a rematch of the 2004 Eastern Conference Finals.
NBA Commissioner David Stern swiftly suspended Artest for the remainder of the season plus the playoffs. Stern also suspended nine other players, most notably Pacers Jackson (30 games), Jermaine O'Neal (25 games, later reduced to 15), and Anthony Johnson (five games), plus Piston Ben Wallace (six games). Four other players were each suspended for one game. It has become popular in some quarters to say that Stern overreacted and issued punishments that were too harsh--the documentary takes that stance--while not addressing the bad behavior by Green that started the melee, as well as the bad behavior by other fans during the fracas. The only power that the NBA Commissioner has over fans is to have them thrown out and/or banned from arenas; it is up to the criminal justice system to impose penalties on fans for criminal conduct. Stern understood that--no matter how badly fans behave--if players go into the stands and get into altercations with fans this is very bad for the league for a whole host of reasons that any intelligent person should be able to comprehend without too much explanation. The NBA can and should do everything possible to protect players, but players are in no way deputized to enforce laws, nor do they have the right to impose vigilante justice.
John Green was eventually arrested, convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery and sentenced to 30 days in jail plus two years' probation. A "fan" named Bryant Jackson who threw a chair pleaded no contest to felony assault plus misdemeanor assault and battery, receiving a sentence of two years' probation plus being ordered to pay $6000 in restitution. Charlie Haddad, a "fan" who wandered onto the court seeking a confrontation with players--and who had a history of seeking such confrontations--received two years' probation, 100 hours of community service, and 10 straight weekends in a county work program.
The documentary glosses over this part, but Artest, Jackson, O'Neal, Johnson, and their teammate David Harrison each pleaded no contest to charges of misdemeanor assault and battery, and each received sentences of one year of probation and 60 hours of community service plus a $250 fine. The documentary portrays the players as a band of brothers engaging in self-defense against a horde of thousands of crazed fans, but self-defense is defined clearly under the law, and the actions of several of the players went far beyond that legal definition. Artest did not have to go barreling into the stands to "defend" himself. He was without question the victim of assault, but he was not being assaulted when he ran into the stands. He could have saved himself several million dollars in lost salary and endorsements had he stayed on the court.
O'Neal often says in reference to the Malice in the Palace, "What would you have done?" He is right that unless you are placed under the duress of those circumstances you do not know for sure how you would react--but the point that he misses is that, even if many other people might have reacted the same way that does not change the reality that there is a right/legal way to react and a wrong/illegal way to react.
Considering that O'Neal is one of the documentary's executive producers, it is perhaps not surprising that the documentary largely frames the incident and the aftermath in terms of how it affected his life. A significant portion of the documentary is devoted to telling the story of O'Neal's rise from poverty in South Carolina to generational wealth as an NBA player. O'Neal's story is inspiring--and a reminder of the kind of upward mobility available in the United States that exists in few other places around the world--but you don't need that much background material about O'Neal to understand the Malice in the Palace. Perhaps if this documentary had lasted 10 hours then it would make sense to provide deep background on all of the principal participants, but devoting so much time to O'Neal's life story did not leave nearly enough time to shed much new light on the Malice at the Palace.
Much interesting material was left on the cutting room floor, or never even sought in the first place. For example, Indiana Pacers' play by play announcer Mark Boyle had a front row seat
for the drama. After the infamous cup infamously hit Artest in the
chest, Boyle can be seen engaging in a futile effort to prevent Artest
from going into the stands. Boyle suffered five broken vertebrae in his
back. As Boyle wrote on Twitter regarding the documentary, "I
was [as] involved in this as anyone, assuming you would consider five
fractured vertebrae being involved, yet nobody producing this
documentary reached out to me."
The documentary has no interview footage of then-Indiana Coach Rick Carlisle--who later led the
Dallas Mavericks to the 2011 NBA title--and there is no footage
featuring then-Detroit Coach Larry Brown, a Hall of Famer who is the
only coach to win an NCAA Division I title (Kansas 1988) and an NBA
title (Detroit 2004). It would have been interesting to hear their perspective. Even if you say that the documentary is meant to show the players' perspective, keep in mind that Carlisle is a former NBA player and Brown is a former ABA All-Star.
We do hear a lot from Artest, whose honesty and self-awareness are refreshing. He describes how at that stage of his life he was battling both anxiety and depression. As Artest put it, he was worried about the future, and upset about the present. He knew even at that time that he needed help, and he was under the care of mental health professionals who were trying to guide him toward ways to manage his mental illness and control his anger. The reason that Artest was lying on the scorer's table is that he had been counseled to withdraw physically and count to five whenever he felt like he was about to lash out; in the prior moments, he had committed a hard (and unnecessary) foul against Ben Wallace with the Pacers up 97-82 and less than a minute remaining in the fourth quarter. Wallace responded with a two-hand push to Artest, players from both teams squared off in classic "hold me back" stances, and the referees were sorting out how to proceed. Artest may have been well-intentioned when he lay down on the scorer's table, but doing so in an opposing arena was not a great idea, and it placed him in a much more exposed position than he would have been in if he had just sat on his team's bench. The referees and his teammates both failed to the extent that they did not remove him from his "resting spot" before trouble happened. This is in no way meant to exonerate Green, who is an idiot and a criminal, but deescalation should have been the order of the day. The referees should have promptly ejected Artest and Wallace, which would have not only been appropriate based on their actions but would have also enabled the teams to likely finish the game without further incidents.
Did you know or remember that Tim Donaghy, who soon became infamous for other reasons, was one of the three referees that night? Donaghy appears on camera in the documentary.
Stephen Jackson gets a lot of air time in the documentary, and almost every time he opens his mouth he reminds you that logical, analytical thinking is not his strong suit. Jackson is an antisemite and he seems to be confused about what he wants to be when (if?) he grows up: as Kwame Brown memorably put it, Jackson cannot decide if he is a gangster or a Black Lives Matter activist. O'Neal is the only player whose initial suspension was reduced on appeal, but Jackson defiantly states that he refused to show any remorse or say anything in his own defense. I don't know if Jackson's suspension would or should have been reduced, but that kind of shortsighted thinking is what led him into the stands (and a host of other negative situations throughout his life and career), costing him millions of dollars.
The documentary tantalizes the viewer with a promise that after you see "previously unseen" footage frame by frame your perspective on the night's events might change. The documentary does not deliver on that promise.
Here is what I saw and knew that night that I also saw during the documentary and still know today:
1) Nobody on the Pacers wanted any part of physically confronting Ben Wallace. If "Hold me back" were a person, his name would be Stephen Jackson. That, in turn, strongly suggests that Artest, Jackson and the others had the ability to hold themselves back--or be held back--from going into the stands, which changed the dynamic from one idiot criminal throwing a cup to a whole bunch of people reacting to the sight of large NBA players hitting normal-sized civilians.
2) Many of the Detroit fans behaved in a criminal and horrific manner. Every one of the people who threw things at the Pacers should have been banned for life from going to an NBA game.
3) I understand why O'Neal felt threatened in the midst of an out of control situation during which fans were on the court and also throwing things at players, but his description of his infamous sliding punch seems more than a little self-serving. After Haddad confronted Artest on the court, Anthony Johnson hit Haddad and then jumped on Haddad while Haddad was on the ground (that is why Johnson was not only suspended multiple games but also successfully prosecuted). O'Neal's version is that he saw Haddad hitting Johnson and thus he came running/sliding to Johnson's defense, but the footage clearly shows that Johnson went to the ground to hit an already fallen Haddad and not the other way around. Haddad did not belong on the court but it was not Johnson's job to subdue Haddad, who was in any case pretty well subdued by that point. If O'Neal had not slipped, the blow that he attempted to deliver would likely have caused serious if not fatal injuries to Haddad. O'Neal should have been gathering Johnson and the rest of his teammates together to head to the locker room. It is important to remember that not every fan acted like a raving lunatic, and not every Pacer decided to just randomly start punching people. Even in the midst of chaos, it is possible to at least attempt to utilize sound judgment.
4) Reggie Miller is perhaps the most sympathetic figure, at least among the players. The 2004-05 season was his last, best chance to win the NBA title, and that chance disappeared in a flurry of foolishness and criminality. I am not as convinced as some people are that the Pacers would have beaten the Pistons in a playoff series had the Malice at the Palace not happened--I think that the Pacers lacked focus and mental toughness, two shortcomings that were on display not only during the Malice at the Palace but also both before and after that seminal event--but it is clear that at full strength the Pacers posed a viable threat to the Pistons. Miller was no longer at the peak of his powers as a player, and he needed O'Neal, Artest, and Jackson to be the leaders/standard bearers, but those guys failed him (and themselves) colossally.
In short, the documentary did not show footage that I had not seen, nor did it change my overall impression of what happened.
By the end of the documentary, I had mixed feelings about O'Neal. The arc of the documentary is meant to portray O'Neal in heroic fashion. He has admirable qualities, and I respect the way that he rose out of adverse circumstances to be successful. He has expressed remorse for his actions, and he has said that he deserved to be punished. O'Neal admits that he failed as a leader to keep the team together and try to win a title for Miller.
However and as noted above, the documentary inaccurately portrays O'Neal's sliding punch, which was not a noble act of defending his teammate but rather an act of aggression against a fan who was on the ground and being hit by Johnson. Also, O'Neal states that the court system vindicated him at every turn after Stern issued the 25 game suspension, a claim that does not withstand careful scrutiny.
First, O'Neal pleaded no contest to two criminal charges. Vindication is acquittal, not a no contest plea.
Second, O'Neal was ordered to pay $1686.50 in restitution to Haddad. I have little sympathy for Haddad, but from a legal standpoint he was a victim of assault by both Johnson and O'Neal (Artest just shoved Haddad away but did not hit him; Artest got in trouble because of what he did when he went into the stands, not for his reaction to Haddad approaching him on the court).
Third, O'Neal's assertion that he won in federal district court misrepresents what happened. The judge most assuredly did not say that O'Neal's actions were justified; that was not, in fact, what the federal case was even about. After Stern suspended the players, the Players Association requested that an arbitrator independently review the penalties. The arbitrator determined that O'Neal's suspension should be reduced to 15 games--again, not a "vindication" of O'Neal, but just an assessment that the punishment should have been less severe. The NBA contended that this was an "on court" incident over which the NBA Commissioner has total authority that cannot be diminished by an arbitrator, while the Players Association argued that this was not an "on court" incident. Without getting into all of the labor law and arbitration law semantics, in layman's terms the federal district court judge agreed with the Players Association and thus held that the arbitrator could reduce O'Neal's suspension to 15 games.
So, in sum, while O'Neal spends the documentary claiming that the legal system vindicated and exonerated him, the reality is the opposite: he suffered a criminal penalty for his conduct, he paid a civil damage award, and an independent arbitrator determined that he deserved a 15 game suspension.
I am not saying that O'Neal is a bad guy. He comes across as infinitely more intelligent than Jackson (admittedly, that is a low bar to clear), and I believe that O'Neal is genuinely remorseful about the impact that his actions had on his team and his teammates in spite of his apparent denial of the extent to which he was in the wrong.
The point is that his telling of the "untold" story distorts the factual record, which is available for anyone to independently examine: watch the footage yourself and, if you are so inclined, look up the judicial proceedings and read them as well.
A final note concerns the use of the word "thug." The etymology of the word traces back to a group of robbers and assassins in India in the 1800s who strangled their victims before stealing their property. Journalists and commentators throw the word around a lot, often in reference to young Black people. I first realized how the word "thug" is received and understood in the Black community after I interviewed Warren Jabali, who deeply resented being called a "thug" in Terry Pluto's ABA oral history Loose Balls. Jabali readily admitted to me that he was wrong "and had no defense" for hitting and then stomping opposing player Jim Jarvis during an ABA game, but Jabali passionately insisted that he was not a thug but rather someone who resented things that had transpired and chose the wrong way to demonstrate that resentment. Talking to Jabali and learning his perspective helped me to understand that the word "thug" has a specific and deeply felt negative connotation in the Black community. The linguist John McWhorter has explained that "thug" has become a code word for the "N-word" but that many people do not realize this because they resist accepting that the meaning of a word is not fixed forever but rather evolves. What "thug" meant in India in 1830 (or even in this country 100 years later) is not what the word means or connotes now. The Pacer players were not/are not "thugs." It is not helpful or productive to categorize a whole group of people as "thugs." That being said, it is also not helpful when entertainers and celebrities promote any form of "thug culture" or "thug life," either.
What happened during The Malice at the Palace was not about "thuggish" players or a "thug" mentality in the NBA; it was a perfect storm of referees not deescalating a situation after a hard foul, fans engaging in criminal behavior, and several players overreacting under adverse conditions.
Labels: Anthony Johnson, Ben Wallace, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Jermaine O'Neal, Malice at the Palace, Reggie Miller, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Tim Donaghy
posted by David Friedman @ 12:46 AM
ESPN Attempts to Revive the Tim Donaghy Scandal
ESPN has published a very lengthy piece about disgraced former NBA referee Tim Donaghy, and has made the very inflammatory declaration that their story explains how Donaghy "conspired to fix NBA games." There is a saying that applies equally to science and to the law: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Just because something may seem plausible when viewed in a certain way does not make it true, or likely to be true, or even admissible in a court of law. Much has been made of the size of the ESPN article but an article's length should not be construed to signify its depth: a 10 line poem can be profound and deep, while a 10,000 word article can be superficial and shallow.
The factual background concerning the allegation that Donaghy conspired to fix NBA games is that the federal government and the NBA conducted separate, independent investigations and could not prove this to be the case. Donaghy pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to transmit wagering information. He was sentenced to 15 months in prison. In an attempt to draw attention away from himself, and perhaps get a lighter sentence, Donaghy alleged to the court that the NBA conspired to alter the outcomes of various games--including the much-discussed game six of the 2002 Western Conference Finals, a game that Donaghy did not officiate--but no proof was ever presented or discovered to support that allegation.
After Donaghy made the accusation about the league conspiring to fix multiple games, I wrote that the NBA should publicly release the grades for the three referees from game six of the 2002 Western Conference Finals. Does the NBA classify that as a well-officiated game or a poorly officiated game? How did each of the controversial calls grade out? Such transparency would be welcome. The closest that the NBA has come to doing this came within the
Pedowitz Report, which contained the findings of an independent investigation conducted in the wake of the
Donaghy scandal; Pedowitz' team broke down game six in great detail and concluded that, while the game was poorly officiated, there was no evidence that the officiating was biased in favor of the Lakers.
When the Donaghy case first became publicized, then NBA Commissioner David Stern publicly stated that Donaghy had graded highly as a referee. That may be true but it is also worth noting that Donaghy never officiated in the NBA Finals--which is where the highest graded referees go--and he did not officiate a large number of playoff games. It would be helpful if the NBA released the data concerning how Donaghy graded out.
It is difficult to reconcile the conflicting notions that (1) Donaghy was objectively a good referee and (2) Donaghy deliberately made incorrect calls and/or incorrect non-calls in order to change the outcomes of games. How could both statements be true? That would be quite a tightrope act., to figure out how to influence the outcome of games by generally making calls that favor one side, but doing so predominantly on calls that are so close in nature that no matter which way they went they would not be graded as incorrect. If the NBA has objective data that shows that Donaghy did not make an unusual number of bad calls/non-calls, that data could put to rest any notion that Donaghy fixed games.
The ESPN article does not present much new information, and the new information that it presents does not prove anything; just counting the number of foul calls that went for or against one team is not meaningful without supplying context concerning time, score, playing style/philosophy of both teams, individual matchups/mismatches, etc. Is it unusual that one team was whistled for x number of fouls in a row? Maybe yes, maybe no. It may be "statistically significant" in the sense that a coin flip would not be expected to generate x number of heads or tails in a row but that statistical significance does not prove that a certain official made those calls to change the outcome of that game.
Other than the number crunching--and the NBA disputes the conclusions that ESPN drew from the number crunching--the rest of the ESPN article primarily consists of statements about Donaghy from dead people, anonymous people and/or convicted criminals. Little if anything in that article that was not already presented in court would be admissible in a court of law. The ESPN article does not prove how Donaghy allegedly conspired to fix games but it presents a scenario that may or may not be true about how he could have conspired to fix games.
Do I believe that Donaghy fixed games? It is certainly possible, and that possibility is very disturbing to me as a lifelong NBA fan who loves pure athletic competition. That which we know Donaghy did is bad enough, and a black eye for him and for the league that did not figure this out sooner. If he fixed games, that is awful; if he is right that the league fixed games and that many referees were involved, that would make me incredibly sad.
However, more than a decade after Donaghy's illegal activity was discovered, there is no smoking gun, no proof that he did more than bet on games that he officiated and provide inside information to gamblers. The league would have everything to lose and nothing to gain by conspiring to fix games; the NBA has been booming financially for decades, and changing the outcome of a few games is not going to provide enough financial upside to cover against the huge downside of getting caught committing such a crime. If it were proven that the NBA fixed games, that would be the end of the league.
I agree with one assertion in the ESPN article: the advent of widespread, legalized betting on NBA games opens up the potential for a large number of problems; as the ESPN writer noted, citing some research done on this issue, the more money that is added to this situation the greater the likelihood for wrongdoing and scandal. Just look at the recent Anthony Davis melodrama; is he going to play, is he not going to play, is he going to play hard, is the team going to play him in the fourth quarter--there are numerous ways for one or more unscrupulous parties to manipulate the point spreads for New Orleans' Pelicans' games. Then you have the issue of rest (or "load management," the new catchphrase for sitting out otherwise healthy players), not to mention the issue of tanking. What if someone is able to get the inside scoop about which stars are going to rest for which games, or which teams decided to tank 10 games before the general public could tell that those teams are tanking? The NBA's recent embrace of widespread legalized gambling is fraught with peril.
It has been interesting for me to look back on my coverage of the Donaghy scandal. When the Donaghy story first broke in the summer of 2007, I was several years away from even considering going to law school; now, I am several years removed from graduating law school, passing the bar and being a licensed attorney. So, understandably, I view the Donaghy story--at least in terms of the legal aspects concerning burden of proof and other issues--through a different prism than I did when I was a journalist who did not have any formal legal training. That being said, when I review what I wrote at that time--see the links below--I stand by my coverage; I grasped the issues and I raised pertinent questions without jumping to conclusions or succumbing to unsupported speculation.
The ESPN story is a page-turning drama but it does not provide any new facts or evidence, just speculation. I am not naive enough to say that there is no way that Donaghy was fixing games but I would be interested to hear an explanation for how he could grade out at least adequately while also deliberately making enough bad calls/non-calls to fix the outcome (or cover the point spread) of multiple games for a period of several years.
20 Second Timeout's Coverage of the Tim Donaghy Story:
New York Post Reports that an NBA Referee is Under Investigation for Fixing NBA Games (July 20, 2007)
Some Questions to Consider About the Tim Donaghy Case (July 21, 2007)
David Stern Sheds Some Light on the Tim Donaghy Investigation (July 24, 2007)
Tim Donaghy's Media Guide Bio Contains Discrepancies (July 26, 2007)
How Hard is it to Detect Crooked Officiating? (July 28, 2007)
Are Hue Hollins and Jake O'Donnell Really the Best Authorities on Refereeing? (July 31, 2007)
What is the Purpose of a Basketball Blog? (August 2, 2007)
Ric Bucher Says that the NBA's Officiating Problems Go a Lot Deeper than Tim Donaghy (August 5, 2007)
The Other Shoe Set to Drop in Donaghy Case (August 15, 2007)
Donaghy Pleads Guilty to Two Felonies, Faces Up to 25 Years in Prison (August 15, 2007)
When Donaghy Starts Singing Will 20 NBA Referees be Sent Dancing? (August 18, 2007)
Tim Donaghy's Tales (June 12, 2008)
Donaghy Sentenced, Key Questions Remain Unresolved (July 30, 2008)
Pedowitz Report Implicates Only Donaghy but Recommends Several Changes to NBA Officiating Program (October 2, 2008)
Labels: David Stern, ESPN, NBA, Pedowitz Report, Tim Donaghy
posted by David Friedman @ 1:44 AM
Pedowitz Report Implicates Only Donaghy but Recommends Several Changes to NBA Officiating Program
The much anticipated Pedowitz Report has been released. You can read the 133 page document by visiting
http://www.nba.com/media/PedowitzReport.pdf. If you are just interested in the bottom line conclusions, the NBA has issued a
two page press release that contains four crucial bullet points:
Along with his recommendations, Mr. Pedowitz reported the following findings:
• He found no evidence that any NBA referee other than Mr. Donaghy bet on NBA games or leaked confidential NBA information to gamblers, and no evidence that phone calls between referee Scott Foster and Donaghy were attributable to criminal activity.
• He found no evidence that any referee miscalled a game to favor a particular team or player, or that the League has asked referees to call games to favor particular teams or players.
• He found no evidence to support specific allegations of game manipulation or misconduct made by Mr. Donaghy and his attorney in June 2008, including allegations regarding a 2005 playoff series between the Dallas Mavericks and the Houston Rockets and a 2002 playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings.
• He found that a number of referees engaged in forms of gambling other than betting on NBA games, in violation of League rules. The League previously decided not to discipline referees for these violations.Pedowitz and his investigators were not able to interview Donaghy directly but according to the report they "conducted approximately 200 interviews," speaking with 57 referees plus numerous team and league executives. I read the entire report and my initial impression is that it will not change too many people's minds: those who believe either in some NBA "conspiracy" to affect the outcome of games and/or those who simply believe that NBA officiating is bad will still believe those things, while those who believe that the NBA has done the best job that it can will say that the Pedowitz investigation offers substantial proof that this is the case. My opinion is that there is no conspiracy to alter the outcomes of games/playoff series and that the NBA referees are among the best in all sports but that the NBA must be vigilant not only to avoid impropriety but the perception of impropriety and that the NBA should be more aware of the personal conduct of referees on and off the court.
It is clearly problematic that neither Pedowitz nor the NBA were able to speak with Donaghy and Pedowitz's report acknowledges this without dwelling on the issue. Without talking to Donaghy, Pedowitz and his investigators basically had to resort to context clues and process of elimination deduction to even figure out which games should be looked at more closely. Of course, even the most casual NBA fan immediately realized that two of Donaghy's most well publicized accusations concerned the 2005 playoff series between Dallas and Houston and the 2002 playoff series between L.A. and Sacramento. The Pedowitz Report looks at both series in great detail but if you just interested in the bottom line here is what the Pedowitz Report concluded:
Dallas-Houston, 2005 Playoff Series:
We have found no evidence of any inappropriate conduct in this playoff series. There is no evidence that anyone in the League office or any of the referees were intending to favor one team over another. Based at least in part on the Mavericks’ complaints, the League identified a type of erroneous non-call that referees had made in prior games and sought to correct it for future games. While Van Gundy continues to take issue with how he believes the message to correct the erroneous non-calls was delivered to the referees, he does not believe the referees or anyone else intentionally sought to manipulate a game or injure his team.
This incident has caused us to focus on the process by which team complaints about officiating are received and resolved. As we discuss in our Recommendations, we believe that all team complaints about officiating during the playoffs and the League’s response to those complaints should be posted for both teams to see.L.A.-Sacramento, 2002 Playoff Series:
The game was, in the opinion of the reviewers, poorly officiated. There were a total of fifteen incorrect calls or non-calls. Of these fifteen errors, eight favored the Lakers, while seven favored the Kings. The bulk of the game’s incorrect calls and non-calls occurred during the first three quarters. In the critical fourth quarter, there were only three incorrect calls or non-calls: two favored the Lakers and one favored the Kings. The officiating errors were found to be distributed among the three referees as follows:• (Dick) Bavetta made nine errors in the game, five of which favored the Lakers and four of which favored the Kings. None of these errors occurred in the fourth quarter.• (Ted) Bernhardt made six errors, four of which favored the Lakers and two of which favored the Kings. In the fourth quarter, Bernhardt made one error favoring the Lakers.• (Bob) Delaney made four errors in the game, two of which favored the Lakers and two of which favored the Kings. In the fourth quarter, Delaney made three of his errors: two favoring the Lakers and one favoring the Kings.The gist of the Pedowitz Report's findings regarding this game is that it was poorly officiated but that there is no evidence that the referees intentionally did a bad job. However, there is an interesting passage about the interactions between Dick Bavetta and Bob Delaney that is disquieting; if two high profile referees have personal issues that may be affecting the quality of their officiating when they are on the same crew then the league should either compel them to resolve those issues, never assign them to work together or terminate one or both referees. Here is how the Pedowitz Report explains what happened during this game and in particular why two rather infamous calls were incorrectly made:
We also discussed Donaghy’s allegations with Ed T. Rush, who was Director of Officials at the time. Rush was present in the arena and supervised the referees during the game. He told us that he was well aware during the game that the referees were having a bad game and making errors. Rush told us that he has reviewed the video of this game on a number of occasions, and the pattern of calls, in his opinion, do not reflect favoritism. He added that it was also inconceivable to him that any of the referees would set out intentionally to extend a series. He pointed out that all of the referees are in competition each year to officiate playoff games and said it was impossible for him to believe any referee would deliberately make erroneous calls and subject himself or herself to having their calls repeatedly reviewed and criticized by the media.
Rush told us he thought that Bernhardt’s performance that night had been satisfactory, and nothing about his performance suggested that he was trying to favor either team. As to Bavetta, while he made a substantial number of errors, Rush felt there was nothing about his call patterns that suggested he was deliberately trying to favor the Lakers. Rush also noted that Bavetta had performed well in the fourth quarter, making no errors.
As to Delaney, Rush was aware that he was involved in the two most controversial calls in the fourth quarter--plays that Donaghy appears to single out as suggesting manipulation. Rush told us that he has known Delaney for many years and believes Delaney is a highly honorable person. He noted that Delaney had been a highly decorated law enforcement officer before he joined the NBA. (Delaney served with the New Jersey State Police for fourteen years before becoming an NBA referee. Delaney’s career included a three-year undercover assignment in connection with a major organized crime investigation. In 1981, Delaney testified as a law enforcement expert before a Senate subcommittee during hearings on waterfront corruption. Senators Warren Rudman and Sam Nunn praised him for his effectiveness and bravery. To this day, Delaney regularly gives speeches at federal law enforcement training sessions and to undercover operatives in the United States and Canada.)
Rush also recalled that Delaney made only a few errors but was nonetheless quite upset with the errors he had made in the fourth quarter. Having known and observed Delaney on and off the floor, and knowing how hard he tried to avoid mistakes, Rush said that he could not imagine Delaney ever deliberately manipulating a game. Rush told us that he had been in touch with Delaney and his wife after the game and learned that Delaney was so upset about his performance in that game that he had suffered sleepless nights.
Rush also told us that he thought that it had been a mistake (for which he took some responsibility) to have teamed Delaney with Bavetta in this game. While Delaney and Bavetta once had a close friendship, they had a falling out in connection with a personal matter some years before this game, and Rush felt that the poor chemistry between the two referees contributed to the crew’s poor performance in this game.
We reviewed the video of this game and discussed with NBA Basketball Operations personnel the erroneous call against Divac and the non-call against Bryant. They explained to us how Delaney and Bernhardt (on the second call) could have missed these calls. The first play, which resulted in Divac receiving his sixth foul, came while Divac was on the floor battling for the ball. Delaney saw numerous players in the scramble and blew his whistle as Bryant was moving in front of him, obstructing his view of the play. The instinct to make a call was understandable; Delaney just made the wrong one.
The second play occurred with twelve seconds left in the game, when Kobe Bryant, trying to free himself on an inbounds play, elbowed Mike Bibby in the face. While Bryant’s elbow, though seemingly inadvertent, was a foul, it occurred only after Bibby grabbed Bryant’s arms in what appears to be an effort to prevent him from freeing himself to receive the inbounds pass. Delaney was positioned on the baseline at an angle that prevented him from getting a good look at the play. Bibby had his back to Delaney, and contact of the nature of the elbow to Bibby’s nose is often incidental. The blood from Bibby’s nose was not seen until later. Bernhardt was the slot official at the time. Bryant moved away from Bernhardt’s position, so Bernhardt also did not have a good angle to see Bryant’s elbow to Bibby. Indeed, the Basketball Operations personnel told us that the television camera had by far the best view of this play.
As noted above, we also re-interviewed all of the current referees after Donaghy’s allegations surfaced in June 2008. There was not a single referee among the dozens we interviewed who supported Donaghy’s claims about this game. The referees told us that the consistent message from the League is to make accurate calls. It has never been suggested to them that they should favor a team or try to extend a series.
Some referees also told us that no rational referee would deliberately make incorrect calls in a game (let alone a playoff game) and subject him or herself to the embarrassment of having calls replayed over and over on ESPN. Some told us that not only was the allegation illogical for that reason, but there also is no economic incentive for referees to try to extend a series. While a referee receives additional compensation for each round of the playoffs he or she officiates, this compensation is the same for a given round whether a referee officiates one or two games in that playoff round.
A number of referees also noted that, because of the strained personal relationship between Delaney and Bavetta, the two men were unlikely to engage in any cooperative venture, let alone one that involved clearly improper conduct. A number of referees also offered the following observation: Game 6 was a controversial game with which almost every veteran referee is familiar. Because it is well known that the referees made numerous errors in the game, it was easy for Donaghy--trying to avoid a jail sentence by providing information about other referees--to suggest that he had a conversation with one of the referees to the effect that two of them hoped to extend the series.
One of the referees told us that he had discussed this game with Donaghy years earlier. While Donaghy had noted the many errors by the referees, he never suggested that he had heard that referees in this game made bad calls to extend the series. We also found it noteworthy that, while referee basketball gossip travels quickly throughout the referee ranks, the referees had not heard any suggestion that Bavetta and Delaney had tried to extend the series.
We have not seen or heard evidentiary or logical support for Donaghy’s allegations about this game.Any person who is objective realizes that even the best referees are going to miss some calls for a variety of reasons and that fans watching games on TV have the benefit of numerous camera angles plus instant replay, luxuries that the referees do not have; they get one chance at full speed to make the right call. The bottom line is that coaches, players and referees all make mistakes. That is just part of the game. The goal for all parties concerned is to minimize those mistakes. In game seven of the Lakers-Kings 2002 series, the Kings lost by six points in overtime after shooting just 16-30 from the free throw line; if they made more of those free throws then they would have won the series even though the referees did not have a great game six. I think that it is reckless and irresponsible to say that game six was "fixed." I would suggest that anyone who says this take a look at his or her own job performance and consider what standard he or she expects to be held to and if that standard equals the call accuracy that NBA officials maintain.
Labels: Bob Delaney, Dallas Mavericks, Dick Bavetta, Houston Rockets, L.A. Lakers, Pedowitz Report, Sacramento Kings, Ted Bernhardt, Tim Donaghy
posted by David Friedman @ 7:19 PM
Donaghy Sentenced, Key Questions Remain Unresolved
The judicial portion of the Tim Donaghy scandal came to a conclusion on Tuesday as the former NBA referee was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for accepting thousands of dollars to provide inside information to gamblers. Last week, Donaghy's partners in crime--gambler James Battista and middleman Thomas Martino, both of whom attended school with Donaghy in Springfield, Pennsylvania--received 15 months in prison and one year plus one day in prison respectively for their roles in this criminal enterprise.
Earlier this summer, Donaghy attempted to lighten his sentence by bringing forth a slew of allegations about the NBA league office and other NBA referees; NBA Commissioner David Stern has steadfastly maintained that Donaghy was one "rogue, isolated criminal," while Donaghy wanted Judge Carol Amon to believe that many other referees have engaged in various kinds of misconduct, including fixing games at the behest of the NBA. Donaghy faced a maximum 33 month sentence but instead received two 15 month sentences that will be served concurrently, so it seems that he did manage to take at least some of the bite out of his punishment. The NBA filed a suit requesting that Donaghy pay $1.4 million in damages to the league but last week the judge ruled that the three co-defendants will have to pay a total of $217,266 in restitution. It is strange that Judge Amon stated that Donaghy is "more culpable" than Battista and Martino and yet Donaghy's sentence is the same as Battista's and the league will receive a fraction of the damages that it sought.
At one point during the second half of last season, I remarked to a fellow writer that I was very surprised at how quickly the Donaghy story disappeared from public view: there was not any widespread fan heckling of referees, there was not wall to wall coverage of Donaghy and for the most part the season took place as if the scandal had never happened. Of course, that changed a bit during the Finals when Donaghy excited conspiracy fans coast to coast by obliquely suggesting that the NBA conspired to fix game six of the 2002 Lakers-Kings series but even that tempest in a teapot seems to have settled down. Then there was a report that Donaghy had made well over 100 brief phone calls to referee Scott Foster just before and just after various games that Donaghy officiated; the only people that Donaghy called more frequently during the period of time in question were his criminal co-conspirators. The FBI and the NBA eventually issued statements indicating that Foster was not suspected of any wrongdoing and then that story died out as well.
The apparent public apathy about the Donaghy story can be interpreted several different ways:
1) Most people already thought that NBA officiating was poor and/or fixed, so they are not surprised.
2) Most people believe Commissioner Stern that Donaghy was one "rogue, isolated criminal" and thus they discount anything that Donaghy alleges about the NBA and other referees.
3) Scandals have become so commonplace now that people just have a cynical attitude about public figures and public institutions.
The problem with assessing the true meaning and impact of the Donaghy scandal is that this is a complex issue but the 24 hour news cycle abhors complexity, depth and intelligence; it is much more important to be the first to "break" a story than to be the first to accurately report and/or analyze a story. What this leads to are lot of stories that are literally "broken" and very few that are covered with sufficient thoughtfulness.
For instance, Donaghy has not been convicted of fixing games; he has been convicted of providing inside information to illegal gamblers. So, when people wonder why it was the FBI and not the NBA that discovered Donaghy's wrongdoing the answer may very well be that he did not engage in any conduct (i.e., making bad calls and/or bad non-calls) that the NBA could reasonably have detected. The NBA graded Donaghy as a good referee and it is possible that he was in fact good--in the sense of being competent at his job, not in the sense of being morally upright. Of course, there are many borderline calls in an NBA game so it is also possible that Donaghy was exceptionally skillful in manipulating such calls to the benefit of his co-conspirators without arousing any suspicion; however, as a practical matter it would be almost impossible to carry out such a balancing act--fixing games successfully by making bad calls without grading out poorly or looking suspicious--for several years.
Therefore, it is natural to wonder exactly what information Donaghy was providing and if it is in fact true--as some outlets have reported--that Donaghy's partners won an extraordinarily high percentage of their bets. Apparently, Donaghy would tell them which referees were working specific games, provide inside information about injured players and mention possible grudges between referees and coaches/players. It has been suggested that the only way that knowing the identities of the referees could be important is if certain referees were engaged in misconduct but that is not necessarily the case; gamblers know that some referees call a tighter game and some call a looser game and those factors work in the favor of some teams and against other teams: for instance, if a referee who tends to call more fouls is working a game contested by a very physical team and a less physical team one might assume that key players on the physical team could get in early foul trouble. It is not realistic to expect every referee to call the game exactly the same way; the problem is if some people know get advance knowledge of who the referees are and then wager accordingly but the NBA has made this issue null and void by changing its procedures regarding when the general public finds out which referees are working a game.
As for grudges, this is something that no one wants to think about but the reality is that in all lines of work personality clashes can have an impact on the job environment. Obviously, when things get out of hand--like Joey Crawford with Tim Duncan or Jake O'Donnell with Clyde Drexler back in the day--the NBA must act swiftly but, as I indicated above, I think that stylistic differences among referees are probably a more important factor than grudges. To use a baseball analogy, if I am a pitcher I want to see a plate umpire who has a big strike zone but if I am a batter I want just the opposite--and, either way, I can adjust as long as that umpire calls the game consistently and the same way for both teams. In basketball, players and teams can adjust to a loosely or tightly called game as long as the officiating is consistent (but the very nature of a particular game may be a little bit more in favor of one team, which could influence the type of bet that someone places).
I think that the most important information that Donaghy provided pertained to injuries; there is a reason that pro leagues require teams to issue accurate and timely injury reports and it is not so that fans can send get well cards to their favorite players: knowing the health status of players is a big part of being a successful gambler.
It is a good bet--pardon the pun--that not long after Donaghy gets out of prison he will write a book about this whole sordid affair. After all, he is apparently destitute and he is not likely to ever get a job in his former profession. Nowadays, any kind of fame is considered a positive thing and if disgraced, plagiarizing journalists can write best selling books then a convicted ex-referee can certainly write (or dictate to a ghostwriter) a book. Donaghy will likely expand upon his allegations regarding the Lakers-Kings series and his other accusations of NBA/referee misconduct. Therefore, although the NBA certainly would like to see this whole matter fade away, it is important for the league to get in front of this story and clarify some issues as opposed to always being caught flatfooted and forced to react.
To that end, I would like to see the NBA take the following actions:
1) Publicly divulge the grades/evaluations of the officiating crew from game six of the 2002 series between the Lakers and the Kings. Commissioner Stern has implied that the game may have been sloppily officiated but he has vigorously denied that it was fixed. I realize that the NBA feels that publicly revealing aspects of their grading system could be a start down a slippery slope but if there is really nothing to hide then at some point it becomes counterproductive to be so secretive about a matter that has been so widely debated.
2) Revive the NBA TV show "Making the Call With Ronnie Nunn" or create a new show with a similar format. Most NBA fans--and even many people who cover the league--do not really understand concepts such as the "lower defensive box" and "the restricted area" and this kind of ignorance leads to people thinking that calls are bad or fixed when they are in fact correct. The NBA needs to do a better job of educating the public about the rules of the game and what exactly referees are supposed to be doing.
3) Explain the whole Donaghy-Foster connection. Obviously, it looks suspicious when the "rogue, isolated criminal" apparently has another referee in his "Fave Five" but if there really was nothing nefarious going on here then the NBA should issue a simple statement clarifying this situation. I can think of innocuous reasons that two co-workers in a high stress job would be in frequent contact with each other and I can think of not so innocuous reasons for all of that phone tag but the point is that a lot of people are going to assume the worst in the absence of some kind of explanation.
Labels: David Stern, Scott Foster, Tim Donaghy
posted by David Friedman @ 6:04 AM
Tim Donaghy's Tales
I don't believe Tim Donaghy's assertion that NBA executives deliberately and maliciously altered the outcome of two playoff series; it strains credulity that such a large conspiracy could have taken place without already being exposed and it also strains credulity that the people who run the NBA would risk the credibility of a multibillion dollar enterprise for the sake of making a playoff series last longer or so that one team would beat another team. It is pretty obvious what is really going on here: the NBA asked the court to force Donaghy to pay the league $1 million in restitution, so he is trying to smear the league's name so that he will not have to pay the $1 million and in hopes that he will receive a lighter sentence for the crimes that he committed.
That said, it certainly looks foolish for the NBA to have made this restitution request: $1 million would hardly have a significant impact on the league's bottom line and Donaghy's retaliatory comments have certainly cost the league far more than $1 million worth of public relations damage. A few months ago when I was covering a game, some writers and I talked about how remarkable it is that the Donaghy story had all but disappeared from public view at that time; I had expected it to be in the headlines throughout the season. If the NBA had left well enough alone perhaps Donaghy would not have made these allegations and his story would have not become so prominent again.
Now that the Donaghy genie is out of the bottle once again, the NBA needs to be very proactive in addressing his charges. Donaghy and his lawyers very cleverly chose two playoff series that received a lot of attention and about which doubts had previously been raised. The NBA must once and for all explain to the general public exactly what did and what did not take place in both instances. Although the Donaghy document speaks in "code," everyone has figured out that he is referring to the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Lakers and the Kings and the 2005 Western Conference first round series between the Mavericks and the Rockets.
Donaghy asserts that in game six of the 2002 Western Conference Finals--a contest worked by Bob Delaney, Dick Bavetta and Ted Bernhardt--two of the three referees were, in his words, "company men," who followed NBA orders to call fouls against the Kings and not call fouls against the Lakers so that the Lakers would win the game and extend the series. The Lakers won game six 106-102 and then won game seven 112-106 to advance to the NBA Finals, where they captured the third and final title of the Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant era. Scot Pollard, a Boston reserve who played for the Kings at that time, told reporters at the Finals that he thought something was strange about that game back then but he added--in remarks that have not been nearly as widely reported--that the Kings could have won that series anyway if they had not allowed Robert Horry to hit a buzzer beating game winning three pointer in game four or if they had taken care of business on their home court in game seven. No questions have ever been raised about game seven, so what Donaghy is essentially suggesting is that the NBA risked having the entire sport being exposed as corrupt in order to get television revenue from one additional game.
In game six, 31 fouls were called against the Kings and 24 fouls were called against the Lakers; the Lakers attempted 40 free throws compared to 25 for the Kings. O'Neal, who was in his prime, and Bryant, who has always been excellent at drawing fouls, shot the majority of the free throws: O'Neal shot 13-17 from the free throw line, while Bryant shot 11-11. That game attracted attention because the Lakers attempted 27 of their free throws in the fourth quarter. It is worth mentioning that the last three fouls and last six Laker free throw attempts happened in the final 19 seconds when the Kings had to foul to stop the clock and get the ball back. Still, prior to that time there were several calls and non-calls that many observers thought were unusual.
The NBA reviews and grades its referees not only for every call they make but also for non-calls that they miss, so there is a simple way for the league to once and for all dispel the idea that this game was fixed: reveal exactly what its grading process said about that game, particularly in terms of certain calls/non-calls that have aroused suspicion. In the league's judgment, was this simply a poorly officiated game or does the league believe that the calls/non-calls were correct according to its interpretations of the rules?
Of course, the NBA is never going to disclose this information for a variety of reasons, including that the referees' association would have a fit. However, I thought that one of the best things the NBA did regarding its officiating is creating the short lived NBA TV program "Making the Call with Ronnie Nunn." Nunn, the league's director of officials, showed videos of various plays from the previous week and explained exactly why they had been called the way they were and he frankly admitted that some calls were wrong (which did not make him a particularly popular figure with some referees and is no doubt one of the reasons that the NBA took the show off the air). Most fans don't even know all of the rules regarding things like the "restricted area" and the "lower defensive box" and this ignorance only fuels their perceptions that their team is getting the short end of the stick even on calls that are routine and correct. Nunn's show was a wonderful educational tool. The NBA should put it--or something like it--back on the air and the first episode should be an examination of game six of the 2002 Western Conference Finals: what did the referees see, why did they make the calls and non-calls that they did and what grades did they receive from the league? I don't believe that the NBA fixed this game or this series but the league is going to face a serious credibility gap with a lot of people until it addresses this issue forcefully and directly. Even if the answer simply is that the game was poorly officiated that would be better than having a cloud of suspicion hanging over it. Maybe the referees were out of position on certain plays and thought that they saw contact when there was no contact (or vice versa). Delaney and Bavetta are two of the league's most prominent and respected referees and the NBA is essentially tainting their names if it does not take action to clarify what happened in that game. As we have seen so many times in so many walks of life, the cover up--or, in this case, even the appearance that something is being covered up--is more damaging than the original offense. In this case, I'm not even convinced that there was an original offense, which is all the more reason for the NBA to resolve this matter as suggested above.
As for the 2005 Mavericks-Rockets series, Donaghy alleges that the NBA instructed its referees to change the way they were officiating a certain team's star player. Based on the information Donaghy provided, it is not hard to figure out that the player in question is Houston's Yao Ming. The Rockets took a 2-0 lead and then lost the series in seven games. Then Rockets Coach Jeff Van Gundy--who is now of course an NBA commentator for ABC/ESPN--was fined $100,000 during that series by NBA Commissioner David Stern. Van Gundy had said that an NBA "official" told him of the league's plans to call the games differently regarding how Yao Ming set screens. During halftime of game three of this year's Finals, Van Gundy reiterated what he has previously said about this situation: when he said "official" he was referring to someone from the NBA offices, not a referee, and that he was wrong to raise the matter the way he did at that time. Van Gundy stands by his statement that he was indeed told about the plan to call the games differently but he does not ascribe corrupt motives to the league. Instead, he sensibly said that the league should be more open and transparent about such matters: if one team complains about how a game has been called then the other team should be notified and the league should clearly tell both teams the result of its inquiry, particularly if the league decides that something had been called incorrectly and would thus be called differently going forward. Van Gundy puts no credence in Donaghy's allegations that the NBA manipulated the outcome of this series. Keep in mind that Dallas owner Mark Cuban has often been a very vocal and public critic of Commissioner Stern. Why would the NBA throw a series in Cuban's favor? It just makes no sense. Van Gundy's explanation is much more logical; the league made a determination about how Yao Ming's screens should be officiated but it did a poor job of communicating that determination to the Rockets so that they could adjust accordingly.
As for Donaghy's assertion that the NBA instructed its referees to not call technical fouls on certain players and to not eject them from games, I think that Donaghy is taking something out of context and trying to make it sound sinister; it is one thing for the NBA to remind its officials to be extra careful to not have quick whistles during playoff games and it is another thing entirely to simply say to not eject certain players no matter what. I suspect that if the NBA did anything it was the former and that Donaghy is portraying it as the latter in order to smear the league. If you are an NBA fan, do you want the referees to have quick whistles and eject star players left and right or would you think that it is a good thing to encourage the referees to defuse situations instead of escalating them? On his show, Nunn frequently talked about player/referee interactions and he said that he instructed his referees to disengage from players, to try not to add fuel to the fire and to only call technical fouls when absolutely necessary.
The reason that I have always dismissed NBA conspiracy theories is that you can come up with a "conspiracy" to fit any eventuality. For example, if LeBron James plays his whole career in Cleveland you could say that there is a "conspiracy" to place him on his hometown team and thus boost the prospects of that franchise--but if he goes to New York you could say that there is a "conspiracy" to turn the Knicks into a great team. By the way, how is that "conspiracy" working out? The Knicks have not won a championship in 35 years and have only made two Finals appearances in that time; if the league is trying to rig things in the Knicks' favor then it has been bungling for decades. Here is a
tongue in cheek article that shows how you can "prove" that there is an NBA conspiracy against the Lakers. The point is that depending on your perspective as a fan you can think that "they" are "out to get" any team, something that Boston Coach Doc Rivers alluded to when he mentioned that during his time as a broadcaster he discovered that every team's fans thinks that the referees are biased against them.
Labels: Dallas Mavericks, David Stern, Houston Rockets, L.A. Lakers, Sacramento Kings, Tim Donaghy
posted by David Friedman @ 2:47 AM
