Several major news outlets compared how many time Tim Donaghy called his gambling contact and other NBA officials. We know what the result of that was.
Answer me this (Tony and Jurassic). If someone, anyone, mentioned the fact that Foster talked to Donaghy almost as much as the gambling contact and the fact that the most he (Donaghy) talked to another official was 13 times, would it be so far fetched for Foster to respond by saying, "So what are you implying?" While that is not the only possible response, it wouldn't be out of place, especially since part of the definition of implicate is:
to bring into connection with.
I met Foster and I don't want him to be in trouble. I also didn't write the story for ESPN, CNNSI, etc. But if the two of you get in such a tizzy because I used the word "implicated"...sorry.
Basically this seems to boil down to someone comparing oranges (150 calls) to oranges (134 calls) and apples (13 calls). You obviously think it wrong to imply those two groups of oranges are similar. You would like to think one of them is automatically more similar to the group of apples.
At this point I'm not addressing what Foster did or didn't do because I don't know and I never said I did. I'm just addressing use of the word implicated.
Touchy, touchy
