NBA Refs Off the Hook?
 

Looks like NBA refs are off the hook..Stern has apparently decided to stick his head in the sand, just like he did when he first started getting wind of problems with this idiot.

From the Seattle Times:

Some league officials admit casual gambling exists among their ranks, but at the weekend National Basketball Referees Foundation Conference in Los Angeles, their main concern was that Tim Donaghy would exaggerate the extent of the gambling.

One veteran referee at the conference, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the collective-bargaining agreement prohibits officials from talking to the media without the league's permission, said a topic of private discussions this weekend among the referees was that Donaghy would try to better his situation at their expense. Gambling other than at a racetrack in the offseason is a violation of league rules for referees.

Commissioner David Stern said the referees need not worry about repercussions from Donaghy's accusations. "Why would we believe anything he says?" Stern said of Donaghy, a referee for 13 years who has pleaded guilty to two felony gambling-related charges and admitted making picks on games he was assigned to officiate.

Donaghy has said he will name at least 20 other referees who were involved in gambling activities

Wow, it's a good thing I don't hate to say, "I told you so."

But hey, I was just guessing.

First, I don't think Stern stuck his head in the sand when this story broke. Maybe you know part of the story that I don't know. But I thought that the FBI first brought the issue to the NBA's attention somewhere around April of this year and asked the NBA NOT to take action until they had a stronger case. I wish that Donaghy had not been allowed to officiate the playoffs, but maybe the assignment was made before the league knew about the gambling. I just don't know the details.

But once the season was over, Donaghy resigned, I believe, after being confronted with the evidence. Then Stern gave a brutally detailed press conference and seemed to be very forthcoming.

Second, why would they believe Donaghy says? He's clearly going to say just about anything to get a better deal. Look into it, absolutely. But you're not just going to suspend a third of your staff on Donaghy's say-so!

Stern knew about problems with this guy before the FBI ever walked in to his office.

I am not suggesting Stern should take action against any official just based on Donaghy's statement. I do think his statement, if substantiated by polygraph or readily accessible physical evidence, should be cause for Stern to launch an in-depth investigation ans "let the cards fall where they will".

He knew about problems with his neighbor and those types of things, but I haven't heard that the gambling was known.

I personally feel that Donaghy's statements should have no influence over Stern's actions whatsoever. If the FBI has some other evidence against specific officials, Stern will see it and it should be investigated. Donaghy's input, in my mind, is worthless because it will all be self-serving. But what I think should happen obviously is irrelevant to the NBA office.

Additionally, I think any refs caught casino gambling will get a slap on the wrist with a "stern" warning not to do it again.

Just because a convicted felon and practiced liar is able to pass a polygraph? Maybe if there's some meaningful evidence beyond Donaghy's word. But I'd highly doubt the FBI will be concerned enough to even hold on to any evidence they accidentally collect unless it actually shows something illegal.

Nothing I've seen suggests Donaghy is alleging his coworkers ever did anything actually illegal; only that they broke NBA rules by gambling in casinos.

I'm with Scrappy, again.

Yes, he did, which is why Donaghy had previously been called to NY to discuss his problem. I guess you would anyone such at this fired immediately?

I agree with Scrapper. Just because Stern doesn't believe a word Donaghy says doesn't mean that other officials aren't being investigated. Yours is a poor analogy.

You can disagree all you want but clearly you do not work on this side of the street. And on this side of the street, you have to deal with filth to clean up the filth.

?????

Apparently, Mike is channeling Old School. :confused:

What exactly do you suggest in the handling of this matter? You want Stern to immediately reprimand/suspend/fire every official that Donaghy names, regardless of evidence to back up the claims? If there is evidence produced by the FBI or by the NBA, then I have no doubt that officials will be reprimanded. But they're not going to be reprimanded on Donaghy's say-so, and they shouldn't be.

Do you want officials fired for casino gambling, which is contrary to their collective bargaining agreement but otherwise legal? Stern would clearly be within his rights to do that, but I don't think he will. That's just my guess. Those officials will be reprimanded, maybe fined, but (if there really are 20 of them) there are too many to simply let all of them go. They'd have to immediately replace a full third of their work force. Not a pleasant thought for Nunn and Stern.

So how would you clean up the filth on your side of the street?

If you can make the other side of the street look even dirtier, then your side looks cleaner. It's a lot easier than actually cleaning up your side of the street.

I guess I kind of see what you're saying here, Bob. But my question to Mike remains. If you don't like Stern's approach, how would you handle the situation differently?

I think it's a legitimate question.

But one that can't be answered without having access to all of Stern's information. Well, not without guessing anyway. Right, Dan?

I remember seeing F. Lee Bailey on a talk show many years ago. He was arguing that polygraph results should be admitted into evidence in trials. His reasoning was that polygraphs had a higher rate of accuracy than some other scientific tests that were admissible. He didn't name those, though.

Sounds like a decent argument to me. The counter argument to this is that the "weight" polygraph results would carry in court would be out of proportion and that juries would believe they were 100% accurate despite any other evidence that would lead to a different conclusion.

You may not be able to fire all of them at the same time but you can put ALL of them on "probation" and fire any on the spot that violate the collective bargaining agreement again. I would also not give any of those officials a play-off assignment during their probationary period. If, when the play-offs roll around, they complain about being on the outside looking in...simply tell them they should be thankful they still have a job. If some choose to quit, let them.

Also, by saying you cannot afford to fire them all you are, in a way, saying that currently you cannot find 20 officials with the skills necessary to work in the NBA...personally, i find that hard to believe. Would the level of officiating decline...probably. However both teams have the same set of officials...in theroy the playing surface is level. The quality of officiating may not be the same from game to game...but I doubt you have that now.

While I think the rule that officials cannot gamble in a legal casino may be foolish it is a rule with which they all agreed. If suspended or put on probation...shut up, take you lumps, learn from the "mistake" and move on.

So Scrappy are you saying that if maybe 1, or 2 or even 3 officials had violated the gambling clause then Stern could easily fire them? But he won't fire 20 because it's just not practical?

And that's an example of NOT hiding your head in the sand? Puh-leeze.

btw, IMO Stern can't fire 20 officials for violating the gambling clauses in their contract because it would be a PR nightmare for the league. Period.

I agree with that completely. In fact, I may have mentioned quite similar earlier in this thread: "Additionally, I think any refs caught casino gambling will get a slap on the wrist with a "stern" warning not to do it again." ;)

Possible, but the playoff officiating is already under so much scrutiny that I don't think they can afford to use "lower tier" officials.

Not exactly, but close enough.

And you agree with me! :D

I disagree...a good "spin doctor" could sell that. Telling your customers that you are doing everything necessary to ensure that the officials assigned to the game are abiding by all the necessary codes of conduct and ethics would not be a nightmare. You may have some complaints early on related to call selection and overall quality but the fans would get past that...and the players should be talented enough to adjust.

Besides...the league is already dealing with a PR problem. There is something to be said for dealing with all the issues at once. It is not always the best approach...but not always the wrong approach either.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying and I guess I didn't really think of it as hiding your head in the sand. I think of "hiding your head in the sand" as ignoring a problem or pretending it doesn't exist. He's not doing that. He's got a problem and he knows it. But firing a third of your staff is probably not the best way to solve that problem, is it? It's probably better to show that you're serious -- by fining everybody or suspending the worst offenders -- and then let everyone know that the consequences will be worse if it happens again. JMO.

You mean it isn't already a PR nightmare for the league? Come on.

Which nightmare headline do you think the league prefers:

"One NBA Official Fired In Gambling Probe"

or

"20 NBA Officials Fired In Gambling Probe"

This one sounds bad also:

"NBA Refuses To Fire Officials For Ethics Violations"

Phrase your second this way...

"NBA Comes Down Hard on Ethics Violations"

...all in how you spin it. :D

Prefers? You're kidding, right?

The nightmare is not the headline anyway. The nightmare is that a referee intentionally manipulated the outcome of a game! (And oh by the way, that's illegal!)

Even if they fired 20 refs for gambling, it's (most likely) for casino gambling, which is -- say it with me -- LEGAL. The nightmare is not the gambling, it's fixing games.

The PR problem is NOT that the refs go in and blow a couple grand at the poker table. The PR problem is that the league fixes it's games. So which one do you think they prefer now?

And, let me throw the same question to you that I asked Mike. How do you think Stern should handle it if you think he's not handling it properly?

Donaghy's guilty plea did not mention anything about "fixing" games in any way. It only mentions giving inside information to the Sopranos.

Those who wondered how he could have actually manipulated outcomes without detection aren't really going to get answers, it seems.

A skill of great value in the WWE. :rolleyes:

Go back & re-read what I wrote. Keep a sharp lookout for the letters "PR" which modify "nightmare".

In case you don't knmow, PR = public relations.

(In case that's too subtle for you no, I'm not kidding. It's all damage control from here on in.)

Is that when you take a lawnmower to your brain? :confused:

Actually, it would explain a lot. :D

C'monm, nmo nmeed to go there. It's onmly a typo.

I completely understand what you're saying, but simply disagree. The bigger PR problem is not that lots of refs gamble in casinos. The bigger PR problem is that the league or its officials are fixing games.

Well no, you don't understand what I'm saying.

Very few people will get (or care about) the distinction between refs casually going to casinos and refs with serious gambling problems influencing games.

That's why it's a PR issue.

TXMike - you sure seem to have it in for the NBA officials? Someone piss you off? Do you not consider NBA officials your peers simply because they work at another level?

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.