The Donaghy situation

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I guess I am intepreting the current media discussion differently.

But if the implications are that, although these behaviors occur, they are not league-wide, nor do they involve all the refs, nor do they always alter the outcomes of games, then I am not sure what the big deal would be. Nor what the big revelation would be.

Before Tim D was busted, did we think refs didnt bet on games? in all sports?

I also disagree that the skewing of calls and crooked refs is just as prevalent in other sports.

[TheSizzle36]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

i have no problem thinking that game 6 was a gift to the lakers...because they got robbed at the end of Game 5 on a call.

Nice, I can't wait for retribution next year in the playoffs for the Jazz against the Lakers then.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I have no problem with superstars getting their calls.

Figures.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by TheSizzle36

Nice, I can't wait for retribution next year in the playoffs for the Jazz against the Lakers then.

If you believe in conspiracies, why would you ever think the Jazz are going to be given any sort of handout? they dont fit the conspiracy profile and have no superstars to receive benefit.

If anything, I would be giving up all hope if I were a Jazz fan believing in conspiracies.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Figures.

It should be of no concern anymore, since you will no longer watch the NBA. You want no part of a league that gives superstar treatment. And that already exists in the NBA.

I am starting to like the thought of conspiracy in the NBA. Since the Lakers will definitely be amongst the teams who will receive preferential treatment, I have nothing to complain about.

Bring on the preferential treatment. Hopefully tomorrow.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

The Government never uses felons as insiders do they? Heaven forbid if they were ever a reliable and proven source in catching others.

lol - yes, let's present a completely unrelated issue as evidence supporting this position. You sound like the guy who called the Locke show yesterday complaining about Stern using "circular logic", and proceeded to explain how the logic was circular...and proved that it was not.

Yes, the government uses felons as sources to gather information to nab "bigger fish", in exchange for plea agreements. Which leads to these questions: What 'plea agreement' did Donaghy accept in exchange for that information? Can the information he provided be confirmed through another source? If this was part of an agreement with the Feds, why would they EVER allow it to go public, ruining their chance to use the information to conclude their investigation?


No - this argument is a poor excuse for an ignoratio elenchi. Yes, felons have an incentive to share TRUE info in exchange for plea agreements. No, that particular scenario doesn't fit this situation. Donaghy has already proven the propensity for falsehoods, and he therefore is an unreliable source.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I know through a conversation I had with a retired NBA ref many years ago, that he mentioned the plague of gambling amongst NBA referees long before the Donaghy issue came to light. He told me it was a major problem and also told me that there are many personal vendetta's that certain NBA Refs have against certain players. The Jake O'Donnell vs. Clyde Drexler feud was just one of many.

I am very much a believer in the human frailty of referees. I believe individual referees have adjusted certain calls in certain games for personal reasons.


I don NOT believe any widespread conspiracy, with someone dictating the outcome of playoff series, has occurred. I HIGHLY DOUBT a widespread conspiracy with a 'mastermind' directing the outcome of even single games has occurred.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

So you believe the league tells refs who should win?

Again, if you do, why dont more marquee teams win rings? Why do we see teams like Detroit and the Spurs and the Nets in the Finals?

Why did the lakers lose to the Jazz two years in a row when the Lakers were clearly the media faves in the WC and a matchup of Lakers/Bulls would have been through the roof? In one of the years the Lakers lost to the jazz, they had 4 All-Stars...Kobe, Shaq, Van Exel, and Jones. Somehow, the league did not fix that.

I would be more inclined to agree if you could explain the glaring inconsistencies that would accompany your assertion, assuming it were true.

maybe I am misunderstanding your belief. How widespread do you feel the conspiracy is?

I'm with DDD on this. Especially when you consider the EXCEPTIONALLY low probability that such a widespread conspiracy could be kept under wraps.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You keep building this straw man. It does not have to be league-wide to be a major problem, nor does it have to involve all of the refs. Nor does it mean that a push by an officiating crew to influence a game is always successful. That is why your earlier list of contrary outcomes proves nothing.

And I guess conspiracy is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I hate the thought of superstars getting soft treatment. Few people would argue that that doesn't happen. The entire question is how far is the league willing to go to influence outcomes?

Jeff, it's not us but you that's building a straw man. The topic started on the Donaghy claims. I posted a general comment that the idea of a wide-spread conspiracy is ludicrous. Mike chose to argue that point, and the argument grew from there.

So, indeed, the argument here IS about a wide-spread conspiracy. It's never been about a single ref influencing a single game for personal reasons. The fact that you are trying to make that the argument is the ONLY straw man that's been built in this thread.

Indeed, your argument proves nothing. DDD's list certainly does provide evidence contrary to a wide-spread conspiracy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Jeff, it's not us but you that's building a straw man. The topic started on the Donaghy claims. I posted a general comment that the idea of a wide-spread conspiracy is ludicrous. Mike chose to argue that point, and the argument grew from there.

So, indeed, the argument here IS about a wide-spread conspiracy. It's never been about a single ref influencing a single game for personal reasons. The fact that you are trying to make that the argument is the ONLY straw man that's been built in this thread.

Indeed, your argument proves nothing. DDD's list certainly does provide evidence contrary to a wide-spread conspiracy.

You are either unable to grasp my point or I am unable to effectively communicate it. I give up.