NBA Refs Off the Hook?

[TXMike]

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

[Adam]

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

But hey, I was just guessing.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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.

"Why would we believe anything he says?" Stern said of Donaghy

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!

[TXMike]

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".

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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

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

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".

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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".

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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".

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.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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.

?????

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by TXMike

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.

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Just because a convicted felon and practiced liar is able to pass a polygraph?

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.

[Odd Duck]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Apparently, Mike is channeling Old School.

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?

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.