Sigh. Believe it or not, I actually do have the intellectual capacity to grasp your insightful analyses. I understood you the first time. Once again, I simply disagree with you.

Whether they care or not, almost anyone will understand the difference between shooting craps at a casino and accepting money to influence games. I happen to think that they will care about that distinction.

I agree... Joe Average Fan really doesn't care if an NBA official plays a little blackjack or craps or something, but obviously sports betting is a problem!

It's the NBA that doesn't want their referees gambling AT ALL -- it just prevents problems.

I think the reason for the gambling ban is to prevent the appearance of anything fishy (or whaly, depending on your interpretation). By having the ban in place, they can stop problems before they get to become a PR nightmare.

IOW, draw the line in such a place that if it gets broken the only ones who care are "insiders."

Donaghy is proof that it's not perfect, but it's worked pretty well.

I think that trying to prevent the appearance of anything fishy is the problem. It's like the TSA in airports -- they make it LOOK like they are making us safe, when the reality is that all they are doing is making air travel a pain in the a$$ for 99.999% of travelers who are law abiding and not terrorists.

Instead of coming up with arcane rules like never going to casinos or never gambling, the NBA might want to direct their energies in another direction. I'd say that Donaghy is proof that the system didn't work at all. Thankfully for the NBA, the personal integrity of most of the officials is what prevents this sort of thing from happening.

It's not just the NBA. It's also in the players and coaches contract as well. They say that Vick is in trouble the most from his gambling, however, gambling is legal in America! And Vick didn't gamble on football games. Our society is a mess. How can you take down the leagues top player for doing something that is legal in America.

Killing dogs, well that's definitely not right, however, he killed pit-bulls, they need to be killed (personal opinion), especially if you breeded them to fight. Far as I'm concerned, one less pit-pull off the streets, the better. I don't understand why the outrage with Vick. Yes, what he did was wrong but is it at the highest level that we have pushed it! To try to say this guy will never play FB again is crazy. That's like trying to impeach the president for having sex in the office. What a waste of tax dollars. Do you know there is guys that have actually killed another person and is still playing FB in the NFL. Is not our priorities a bit screwed up.

Getting back to the gambling, shouldn't the gambling actually be on FB if we are going to end his career forever? If I'm Atlanta, suspend him without pay for a year, probation next 5 years or the length of contract, Vick can compete for his job back after suspension to be added on to whatever the NFL does. The guys too good a talent and too important to the NFL to say never ever again. That is just wrong.

Not worth responding to......:rolleyes:

Exactly.

And what problem does it prevent?

The perception problem that Joe Average Fan who spends 10 minutes a month thinking about this might lump casual gambler officials in with mobbed-up gambling addicts.

IOW it's a PR issue.

So you're going to take that action simply because Tim Donaghy says they gambled?

Sorry but that's http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/bs_sign.gif.

Thank goodness you aren't the commissioner of any major professional sports league.

...but not to grasp the difference between the singular analysis and the plural analyses.

In any event you give Joe Fan too much credit, and certainly have too much faith in Joe Sports Page Editor.

1 official fired for gambling = we're on top of this, the mousetrap worked.

20 officials fired for gambling = the rats have over run the ship.

You explained it 3 times. That strikes me as more than one, no? :confused:

Perhaps. But I don't think so. We're not talking rocket science.

Strikes me as an act of futility.

One futile act = singular. No we're not.

We're talking about "journalism".

Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Owen whateverthefughisnameis...you know, least common denominator.

Actually, I think that the NBA is more concerned with associations that you might make if you frequent gambling establishments. There is also a concern about officials getting deep in debt to someone and having to do a "favor" to someone in order to get out of debt.

I think that the NBA needs to distinguish for its officials the line between betting $20 on the slots in Vegas or losing/winning a few hundred at blackjack and wagering thousands of dollars on table games and betting on sports... they are not the same.

Personally, I think that the NBA has completely won the PR war on this one... It's amazing how much of a NON-issue Donaghy has been in the media. It's almost as if all the fans collectively said, "Yeah -- see, told you so." and then went about their business.

Not gonna happen.

I think the legalese is that the prejudice to the jury from a polygraph outweighs its probative value.

Believe it or not, we agree.

That 1 rat in the mousetrap lets the fans move on with their lives. PR war won.

20 rats?? Hey...hold on here...

Even the most casual fan would be shocked at the apparent extent of the problem. It doesn't really matter that "the problem" is someone occasionally dropping a couple of bucks on a casual walk through a casino. All they know is 20 or so of these guys got fired for "gambling". As you say, not at all the same as some mobbed-up gambling addict...but to the casual observer that doesn't matter. And whipped up by some "journalist" making a big deal out of next to nothing...?

That's why we won't see anyone else fired over this mess.