I guess if referees went into the casino to play blackjack, it would be a non-story...but many casinos have sports books, in which bets on NBA games are placed all the time.

You do not understand what I am saying. I am saying that the results of the poly can be used by Stern to initiate investigations into the other named refs. Does not have to be admissible in court for him to do that. Furthermore, there are collective bargaining agreeements and employment contracts in many workplaces that require employees to submit to polygraphs in some cases. I do not know if the NBA has that or not. I suspect they do have a pretty easy way to dump someone should they choose to do so. Probably does not take much. Like I said before, nobody has a RIGHT to be a NBA ref.

I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm saying the polygraphs may or may not be enough for the NBA to initiate an investigation. It's largely going to depend on the wording of the collective bargaining agreement. I highly doubt if this scenario was considered when it was written.

Furthermore, I'm saying there isn't going to be much public outcry for these officials to be fired unless it's determined they were betting on basketball. There's no sinking ship for the commissioner to salvage here, other than the actual situation Donaghy created personally. Maybe if they were betting on other sports, but only maybe. But if they can't show anything other than them walking into the casinos and cameras showing them doubling down a pair of Aces, they may well get off with fines if there's a significant number of them. If there's only one or two, they might get fired.

I never said anyone has a right to be a ref at that level. However, the disruption that would come from firing some 20 refs is significant enough that it won't be done lightly. Also, their collective bargaining agreement is going to grant them certain legal rights.

Casinos will have tapes. Any referee accused of betting at casinos will be investigated.

Also Stern cannot come out smelling like a rose no matter what happens on this.

The Officials union will not be a factor. Remember what happened to the umpires.

1) Why does Stern need any justification to start an investgation? :confused:

2) What could be in the collective bargaining agreement that would prohibit Stern from having somebody watch security tapes from a casino?

1. Don't you think any union would raise a stink if the employer was initiating an investigation based on hearsay? The fact that a guy who admits to betting on his own games and giving out confidential inside information to gamblers says these guys were in a casino is hearsay.
2. Valid question. I don't know. Some sort of due process clause, perhaps. I'm not saying it's there, only that it's possible.
3. I still don't expect to see 20 guys get fired over this.

What happened to the umpires was an entirely different situation. Umpires retired because they did not like the contract talks. And the umpires were so arrogant they thought no one else would fill their shoes.

Peace

I have no idea what any union could do to prevent an employer from investigating terms of employment conditions. I bet the most the union could do is raise a stink, but that wouldn't prevent the employer from hiring some private investigators to see what they dig up. But so far, as others have said, the union seems to be less than powerful.

If there is a collective bargaining agreement there are a lot of things a union can stop. Not to say this is one of them, but if you look at the MLB Umpire situation as a model. The Major Leagues cannot just fire those umpires for performance issues like other leagues. It is very possible that some of these things cannot be allowed by the NBA. Or at the very least there is a clear cut explanation of what those penalties would be. I do know that officials in the NBA cannot go into a Casino without first contacting the league and they cannot play slots and blackjack as a hobby. It is possible that it would not be allowed to fire an official just for playing a Casino game without other offenses.

Peace

I agree with you. What I'm saying is there's really little the union or anyone can do to stop them from starting an investigation, which might include some poor SOB looking through hours and hours of casino tape. What comes of that investigation (fines, firing, whatever) is - or should be - stated in the agreement.

I think you're probably right. Now, what are the odds the casinos are going to turn their tapes over?

Not willingly. I'd bet the NBA will get subpoenas if they really want these videos.

Based on what? There isn't any alleged illegal activity.

The NBAs employment requirements aren't going to be enough to get subpoenas. All they have is hearsay that these guys may have placed bets at casinos.

What's to stop them?

I bet they hand them over to divorce lawyers all the time.

edit to add you're acting like the NBA is a government agency and this is a criminal investigation, or that the casinos are a government entity that has to guarantee privacy. Neither is the case, it's an employee/employer/union matter that might or might not become a civil matter later.

Not at all. Quite the opposite in fact. Casinos are private organizations that, I'd be willing to guess, want to protect their customers' privacy for good business reasons. I doubt the casinos will want to release these tapes unless they're compelled to. Since the allegations don't involve any illegal activity, there won't likely be a government agency involved, so the NBA won't be able to compel the casinos to hand over the tapes.