NBA embarassment

[Texas Aggie]

He only risks perjury if he actually goes to court to testify about it; and if his testimony is demonstrably false.

That's not necessarily true. First, he can be signing an affidavit. Second, in addition to perjury, there's the False Statements Act which covers lying to a federal law enforcement agency. Trust me when I say he is NOT lying. He's not looking at a very long sentence as it is (maybe 24 months). If he's dumb enough to lie and commit one or two other felonies, he will easily double or triple his sentence. His statements may be designed to lessen his sentence, but there is a small chance of that vs. a very big chance of extending it if they charge him with additional felonies.

Further, his lawyers are submitting his statement in a court filing. This isn't testimony on the stand that he just said, without preparation or rehearsal. His lawyers would know if this stuff isn't true and aren't going to risk their license by filing a false affidavit. If he had blurted a lie out in court, that's one thing. Filing a brief with evidence attached is completely different.

David Stern knows he isn't lying and would parade the officials who called that game in front of ESPN for a breakdown of the plays if needed. He won't do that since he thinks the NBA's circus is a well kept secret.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

That's not necessarily true. First, he can be signing an affidavit. Second, in addition to perjury, there's the False Statements Act which covers lying to a federal law enforcement agency. Trust me when I say he is NOT lying. He's not looking at a very long sentence as it is (maybe 24 months). If he's dumb enough to lie and commit one or two other felonies, he will easily double or triple his sentence. His statements may be designed to lessen his sentence, but there is a small chance of that vs. a very big chance of extending it if they charge him with additional felonies.

Further, his lawyers are submitting his statement in a court filing. This isn't testimony on the stand that he just said, without preparation or rehearsal. His lawyers would know if this stuff isn't true and aren't going to risk their license by filing a false affidavit. If he had blurted a lie out in court, that's one thing. Filing a brief with evidence attached is completely different.

David Stern knows he isn't lying and would parade the officials who called that game in front of ESPN for a breakdown of the plays if needed. He won't do that since he thinks the NBA's circus is a well kept secret.

Based on what I have so far read, he did not make any substantive claim. He did not offer evidence or why the officials had the incentive to fix a game, like how much they got paid or who told them to fix the game. To say that he is not because a lawyer is apart of this and claiming that Donaghy could not be lying is a stretch IMO. Donaghy was not even on the game. Also one of the officials that are accused of fixing that game is a former cop that dealt with people in the mop and put people away that were felons. You have to do more than just say, "They fixed a game." Donaghy was caught by the FBI because his name came up several times in wiretaps in an unrelated case. Donaghy has lost a lot to influence gambling which he made less than 10% of his salary. He is trying to save his aZZ and hopefully salvage some of his life by not being behind bars.

Peace

[NYBLUE]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Based on what I have so far read, he did not make any substantive claim. He did not offer evidence or why the officials had the incentive to fix a game, like how much they got paid or who told them to fix the game. To say that he is not because a lawyer is apart of this and claiming that Donaghy could not be lying is a stretch IMO. Donaghy was not even on the game. Also one of the officials that are accused of fixing that game is a former cop that dealt with people in the mob and put people away that were felons. You have to do more than just say, "They fixed a game." Donaghy was caught by the FBI because his name came up several times in wiretaps in an unrelated case. Donaghy has lost a lot to influence gambling which he made less than 10% of his salary. He is trying to save his aZZ and hopefully salvage some of his life by not being behind bars.

Peace

You're talking about Bob Delaney

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by NYBLUE

You're talking about Bob Delaney

Yes.

Peace

[just another ref]

It is really hard to believe that an NBA Finals game could be fixed. But it is also hard to believe that the steal and dunk by Radmanovic was not called a travel.

[pistol]

I agree with Rut. What has the world come to. AAAAGH

[JugglingReferee]

And in other news, LHO acted alone in JFK's assassination.

[grunewar]

BadNews brought up Canseco.......

I heard someone last night compare this to the Jose Canseco roids case too. As in, when Canseco made his initial accusations many said he too was full of crap, had an axe to grind, was less than credible, etc. But, where there was smoke, there was fire in that case. And now, many months later a lot of others have gone down and there was at least some truth to what he said…….

Only time will tell where this one goes……

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

That's not necessarily true. First, he can be signing an affidavit. Second, in addition to perjury, there's the False Statements Act which covers lying to a federal law enforcement agency. Trust me when I say he is NOT lying. He's not looking at a very long sentence as it is (maybe 24 months). If he's dumb enough to lie and commit one or two other felonies, he will easily double or triple his sentence. His statements may be designed to lessen his sentence, but there is a small chance of that vs. a very big chance of extending it if they charge him with additional felonies.

Further, his lawyers are submitting his statement in a court filing. This isn't testimony on the stand that he just said, without preparation or rehearsal. His lawyers would know if this stuff isn't true and aren't going to risk their license by filing a false affidavit. If he had blurted a lie out in court, that's one thing. Filing a brief with evidence attached is completely different.

David Stern knows he isn't lying and would parade the officials who called that game in front of ESPN for a breakdown of the plays if needed. He won't do that since he thinks the NBA's circus is a well kept secret.

Okay, in lieu of going to court, he can sign an affidavit. Either way, to convict him of perjury it has to be proven to be false. From what I've seen, it's his word against theirs on a matter of opinion. If he has evidence, or if he's stated something that can be proven false, then yes, he's risking perjury.

And and until I see any actual evidence to back him up, I stand by what I said earlier.

Honestly, David Stern would have to be a complete idiot to do what he's been accused of doing. I haven't seen any evidence that Stern is stupid.

If Stern did this, and if it comes out, it will bring the NBA down significantly; possibly completely.

The difference between this and Conseco is that, for the most part, Conseco's knowledge was first hand. Unless Donaghy claims to have been involved in the meetings between Stern and the officials for that game, he doesn't even have Conseco's credibility.

So, when a convicted felon questions the integrity of three other officials (one of whom is Bob Delaney FCOL) without a shred of evidence other than he says so; I'm siding with the officials every time.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, when a convicted felon questions the integrity of three other officials (one of whom is Bob Delaney FCOL) without a shred of evidence other than he says so; I'm siding with the officials every time.

Just for the record the accusation is that 2 of the 3 officials in the 2002 game were in on the fix.

[Adam]

Oh, well that's different.

[Texas Aggie]

He is trying to save his aZZ

You are 100% correct. However, my point is that he will derail that possibility by lying.

to convict him of perjury it has to be proven to be false

First, please reread my post. Its more than perjury. Second, look at the Scooter Libby trial. All the special counsel could parade before the jury in that trial was 1) conflicting stories between Libby and those he spoke with; and 2) the fact that Libby might have lied to those reporters he spoke with (which isn't a crime). Still, the jury came back with a conviction even without what I would call real evidence of perjury or obstruction. If the US Attorney wants to convict someone on perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice to make an example, they likely WILL convict. Donaghy's attorneys know this and would have resigned as counsel before submitting any materials that contained false statements.

[Adam]

Fair enough. We'll just have to disagree on this. I think he's lying because what he's claiming doesn't make sense. It's too risky for some very smart people to have attempted.
You think he's not lying because it's too risky for him and his attorney to attempt.

I have more confidence in Stern's risk assessment than in Donaghy's.

I also think this is less an attempt to save his a$$ than it's a last-ditch effort from a desparate man to salvage his reputation; in his own mind. It actually fits the pattern of his reputed domestic issues; an angry man lashing out when he's been publicly embarrassed.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

You are 100% correct. However, my point is that he will derail that possibility by lying.



First, please reread my post. Its more than perjury. Second, look at the Scooter Libby trial. All the special counsel could parade before the jury in that trial was 1) conflicting stories between Libby and those he spoke with; and 2) the fact that Libby might have lied to those reporters he spoke with (which isn't a crime). Still, the jury came back with a conviction even without what I would call real evidence of perjury or obstruction. If the US Attorney wants to convict someone on perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice to make an example, they likely WILL convict. Donaghy's attorneys know this and would have resigned as counsel before submitting any materials that contained false statements.

Understand my comments were not about perjury. That is a legal term and there are reasons for why you are accused of perjury. My point is he was simply lying and did not have evidence to back up that claim. It does not mean that they are going to prove his claim that the game he referenced was influenced by the officials to further the series. And you are assuming that Donaghy's lawyers have ethical standards as well. Many assume that Clemens is lying and his counsel has allowed him to lie about and make claims. Now you might know more about this than I do because I believe you are in this profession, but then why is Clemens considered a big liar and Donaghy who has admitted to committing a crime telling the truth and Clemens who has not lying?

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you are assuming that Donaghy's lawyers have ethical standards as well.

What's the line on this?