Craaaaazy Excerpts from Donaghy's (upcoming?) Book

[Celtic]

The NBA needs a complete overhaul from commissioner to refs, regardless of whether these comments are true or not. I have always felt that game six in 2002 between LA and Sacramento was fixed, and nothing will ever convince me otherwise. Sure Donaghy is shady and his words can't be trusted, but we all said the same thing about Jose Canseco and almost everything he said was true.

To me a lot of the things he is saying here are things I have thought for a long time, games being fixed, Bavetta just wanting attention, the ticky tack fouls and score tracking are all crimes I believe have existed in the League. Hearing Donaghy say it only compounds my belief.

[Finkelskyhook]

I've said this ad-nauseum.  When fan interest declines because of the sham that is NBA officiating, officiating will be addressed.  Until then, team's stars will almost never get called for traveling, will draw bogus charges, and will virtually never get called for charging.  The rulebook will apply to the non-stars. 

Under that tiered officiating, there's so much subjectivity that game fixing is easy. It'll be equally tough to expose.

That's why Donaghy got away with it as long as he did.  I don't need to read his book to figure out what's going on...Just watch the games.  It's gotten so ridiculous that if traveling was called by the rulebook, that alone would make for a 4-hour regulation game with all of the whistles.  If Stern's own addressing of flopping with a tech was more than just lip service, a regulation game would go past midnight.

[Brickowski]

Who knows what a juror will believe?  A reasonable juror would also know that those 30 refs have a vested interest in debunking Donaghy's testimony.

Meanwhile, Donaghy's lawyers will, in discovery, go after all of the NBA's records on officiating matters and will seek corroborating testimony from ex-NBA officials, several of whom have been highly critical of the league.

I dont think a case like this would actually get to court.  I think there would be some kind of settlement before anything gets to court.

This is not the kind of case that settles, unless the NBA is willing to pay Donaghy more in hush money than he can make from the book.

The minute the full text of the book becomes available on the web, the NBA is cooked, whether or not some of it is pure fabrication. After that, what is the NBA going to do, sue Donaghy for damages?  That won't work, he's an empty pocket.  Besides, David Stern, Dick Bavetta and the other referees are probably public figures, and if that's the case, the NBA would likely have to establish reckless disregard to recover.

[fugazzi24]

Personally I think many of the things Donaghy said are true and are just exagerated in his book to sell more copies. 

1.) Star Treatment - We have all known this forever and it comes as no surprise.  How many times a game does a the back up big man put his hand up to keep the foul away from his superstar player.  We accept this because we want to see the best players stay in the game and my only objection comes when there is no one else around and a star commits a foul that is not called.

2.) Do certain players come in and out of favor with referees of course they do -  Have any of you ever reffed or worked any kind of sport, it is human nature to give less slack to the complaining, spoiled player vs. the understanding hard working player.  The only exception is when a player is able to intimidate a ref to the point where he then earns the best calls.  Which I can see happneing at higher levels like the NBA.

3.) Are games fixed by the NBA, ABSOLUTELY NOT! - Stern and the entire league are well aware that a scandal like this would tank the league and would never intentionally allow something like that to happen.  The risk reward for this type of behavior is not there, boost your ratings this year but possibly destroy the leagues future.  The only people that make those kind of gambles work on wall street at Goldman and they have the entire US Gov. in their back pocket. (I will admit the Lakers run in the early 2000's seems fishy but I have to think that I hate them so much)
 

With all this said if the NBA is fixed and wants ratings then we should all get ready for an Epic, 7 game, Boston vs. LA series this June.  In which case I forgive any wrong doing the league may have done in the past.  As long as Pierce hits a game winning fall away over Artest to win the title and Perk gets to body slam Kobe at half court.

[LarBrd33]

It's easy to find a collection of things that fans have speculated on... and then pinpoint them  and magnify them in a book.  It makes it "believable", because fans already have it in mind.  But the goal is still to appeal to those thoughts and get those fans to buy the book.   

For example.  The consensus speculation (from some people) on Michael Jackson was that he was a disturbed person who begged his doctors for drugs.   If I was a doctor who crossed paths with Jackson and was looking to sell a book... I'd say, "michael was a primadonna who used his handlers to get ahold of my personal information.  At 3:00AM I received a call from him on my cell phone (a number I never personally gave him)... it was MIchael.  He was out of breathe, in total hysterics and rambling about how much "pain" he was in.  He demanded that I meet him immediately and offered to pay me $10,000 if I came to his house and injected him with drugs"...      This would be "believable", because the public already knows what they want to believe.  It wouldn't necessarily make the story true. 

Fans have complained about star treatment and poorly called games forever.  It wouldn't be too hard to play to those complaints/perceptions and fabricate some details.  Not saying it's all 100% garbage... I'm just saying that a wealth of details doesn't necessarily confirm the validity.  Donaghy needs cash.

[Brickowski]

My guess is that some of what Donaghy says will be true, some of it will be exaggerated, and some of it will be fabricated.

I'm sure that the NBA's lawyers have been planning the league's response to Donaghy's book for some time now.  Everyone knew he would write one, and the NBA will do everything it can to delay and if possible to quash publication.

Perhaps a congressional committee should sort through Donaghy's allegations and make independient findings of fact after hearing everyone's testimony and reviewing evidence, as congress did with the steroid scandal in baseball. 

Of course all of that is David Stern's worst nightmare. 

[Finkelskyhook]

My guess is that some of what Donaghy says will be true, some of it will be exaggerated, and some of it will be fabricated.

I'm sure that the NBA's lawyers have been planning the league's response to Donaghy's book for some time now.  Everyone knew he would write one, and the NBA will do everything it can to delay and if possible to quash publication.

Perhaps a congressional committee should sort through Donaghy's allegations and make independient findings of fact after hearing everyone's testimony and reviewing evidence, as congress did with the steroid scandal in baseball. 

Of course all of that is David Stern's worst nightmare. 

....Like it was Seligs....Hmm...I wonder if Stern happens to have a washed up crooked polititian on the board of directors of one of his prominent teams to spearhead the "investigation" like Selig did.

A congressional investigation would probably produce the same result as MLB's steroid investigation.

[Spilling Green Dye]

The other refs can say what they want under oath, and so can Donaghy.  The question is, which testimony will the jury believe?

Right now, having watched the NBA for 30 years, I believe Donaghy.

The NBA will have a better chance of winning its case if, during voir dire, its lawyers can exclude any juror who has actually watched an NBA game.

TP for the info Brick.

Also, your line "Right now, having watched the NBA for 30 years, I believe Donaghy" made me laugh because I feel the exact same way. (except it's been 20 yrs for me).

[Eja117]

Amazingly if this went to trial on some level I assume the NBA would try hard to keep NBA fans off the jury

[crownsy]

Amazingly if this went to trial on some level I assume the NBA would try hard to keep NBA fans off the jury

pretty standard procedure in any case.

For instance, im pretty much barred from any jury because one of my close relatives is a police officer.

I've been called for jury service twice, and during questioning both times i've been asked the fateful "do you have any close family in law enforcement?"

Both times i've been immediately disqualified as a juror, once by the prosecutions challenge, once by the defendants.

I agree it's ironic though

[Eja117]

Amazingly if this went to trial on some level I assume the NBA would try hard to keep NBA fans off the jury

pretty standard procedure in any case.

For instance, im pretty much barred from any jury because one of my close relatives is a police officer.

I've been called for jury service twice, and during questioning both times i've been asked the fateful "do you have any close family in law enforcement?"

Both times i've been immediately disqualified as a juror, once by the prosecutions challenge, once by the defendants.

I agree it's ironic though

No that's not what I meant. I meant that one would expect NBA fans to want to help protect the league and not a crooked NBA ref. Yet the league themselves would seek to disqualify their own fans from jury duty because they realize their own fans aren't satisfied with the officiating and are "biased" against them, as opposed to for them.

You'd think the ref lawyers would seek to disqualify nba fans, but I bet they'd prefer them

That's pretty sad for the league

[Eja117]

I think they'd especially want to eliminate Sacramento fans, but not so much Lakers or Cleveland fans

[ToppersBsktball10]

Why would anyone but Nuggets fans care if they missed the playoffs? I mean really? I think they'd just make a little more money, but whatever the NBA's bogus.

[nickagneta]

Amazingly if this went to trial on some level I assume the NBA would try hard to keep NBA fans off the jury

And that in and of itself tells you all you want to know about how the fans of NBA basketball already perceive it. Stern has been sucking up to the disinterested fan and non fan for years doing everything in his power to grab at their attention and pocketbooks that he has lost, to some extent, his core fan base. He has forgotten, in the end, who really keeps the food on the table for him. He needs to clean up the act of the refereeing and the obvious bias towards certain markets, players and teams and allow the game itself to attract the fans. That's what happened in the early 80's. The game brought the fans and made the superstars, not the other way around.

[crownsy]

Amazingly if this went to trial on some level I assume the NBA would try hard to keep NBA fans off the jury

pretty standard procedure in any case.

For instance, im pretty much barred from any jury because one of my close relatives is a police officer.

I've been called for jury service twice, and during questioning both times i've been asked the fateful "do you have any close family in law enforcement?"

Both times i've been immediately disqualified as a juror, once by the prosecutions challenge, once by the defendants.

I agree it's ironic though

No that's not what I meant. I meant that one would expect NBA fans to want to help protect the league and not a crooked NBA ref. Yet the league themselves would seek to disqualify their own fans from jury duty because they realize their own fans aren't satisfied with the officiating and are "biased" against them, as opposed to for them.

You'd think the ref lawyers would seek to disqualify nba fans, but I bet they'd prefer them

That's pretty sad for the league

I dunno, certainly what i posted doesn't directly apply, but i do find it funny, more so for the prosecution that traditionaly both sides in a case want to dismiss people with legal and criminal knowledge (they ask about family who are lawyers to)

Same principle, if a little less on point. Lawyers do not like people with knowledge of the subject on juries. It makes it harder for lawyers to make arguments to them.