Just because the Preacher talks on basketball, baseball/softball officiating doesn't mean anything. Does he talk to anyone? :p

To tomegun's defense, the possible definitions of implicated include "implied". In that sense, he is fully correct. The mere mention of him in the way that was done in the article is itself an implication.

Sure, neither the government nor the NBA has implicated him, but that doesn't stop some journalist form doing so. And this journalist did so in way short of stating it as fact but only to lead the reader to suspect possible guilt based on the circumstances.

I think the only "implication" is in the fact there were 134 phone calls between Donaghy and Foster between Oct. 2006 and April 2007, while there were at most only 13 calls to other NBA refs during that same time. Also, the only person Donaghy talked to more often in that same time period was Martino, the middleman between Donaghy and the bookie.

Maybe all they were sharing was recepies.

You don't have a friend that you talk to or email more than many of your other friends? You talk to everyone you know equally? If your NFF is arrested, that automatically implicates you?

That's stupid.

Several major news outlets compared how many time Tim Donaghy called his gambling contact and other NBA officials. We know what the result of that was.

Answer me this (Tony and Jurassic). If someone, anyone, mentioned the fact that Foster talked to Donaghy almost as much as the gambling contact and the fact that the most he (Donaghy) talked to another official was 13 times, would it be so far fetched for Foster to respond by saying, "So what are you implying?" While that is not the only possible response, it wouldn't be out of place, especially since part of the definition of implicate is: to bring into connection with.

I met Foster and I don't want him to be in trouble. I also didn't write the story for ESPN, CNNSI, etc. But if the two of you get in such a tizzy because I used the word "implicated"...sorry.

Basically this seems to boil down to someone comparing oranges (150 calls) to oranges (134 calls) and apples (13 calls). You obviously think it wrong to imply those two groups of oranges are similar. You would like to think one of them is automatically more similar to the group of apples.

At this point I'm not addressing what Foster did or didn't do because I don't know and I never said I did. I'm just addressing use of the word implicated.

Touchy, touchy :D

If the NFF (I don't even know what that means right now) calls you right before and after committing several crimes an investigator will most definitely bring that person in for questioning. If not, that investigator will have a short career.

To not at least look at the person would be stupid.

[quote=tomegun]If the NFF New Find Friend?

And if the investigator does look at that person and doesn't find anything remotely illegal, that person is <b>NOT</b> implicated as having anything to do with those crimes. That's exactly what happened with Foster according to all of the articles I've read.

To post that Foster was <b>still</b> implicated <b>after</b> those facts have come out and he was cleared is what is really stupid imo.

Just so I'm perfectly clear.....I've never had a problem with anybody questioning the ability of any official. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion in that regard. When you start to question the integrity of an official however, you'd better have some damn good proof.

Hey, hold on, I'm just pointing out where the "implications" come from. I'm not commenting at all about either Foster or Donaghy's guilt or innocence. The article doesn't give a complete accounting of his phone records, so I don't know if there are other people that he has talked to more often in that same time period. I hope he talked to his wife and family more often, but those numbers aren't mentioned. But, as Nevada mentioned, if I'm being investigated for something I did wrong at work, and there's one particular co-worker I called way more often than other co-workers, even Barnie Fife would know to check into that implication a little further. Does that mean that co-worker is guilty? No, but it does mean he/she will get checked out a little more thoroughly.

As for the NBA saying there's no problem or connection, I hold that with almost the same regard as whatever Donaghy has to say. The NBA has a big stake in the outcome, so they are not going to be a totally objective voice in this matter. I'm waiting for someone not connected with either party to come out with specifics and facts, such as, perhaps, a spokesman for the FBI. But, until then, I hope Donaghy is not as guilty as pictured, and I sure hope there's no additional conspiracies, as that directly affects all of us.

So now I guess you are saying I should have said he was implicated previously, but now he isn't since they've looked into it? OK, fair enough. Either way, the whole matter is bringing Foster (rightly or wrongly) into connection (part of the definition of implicate) with Donaghy's gambling problem.
At this point, you've made your opinion clear and it would be hard to back away from it even if you thought you should. That is human nature and I can understand that. However, that alone doesn't make you right so tell me how I improperly used implicated other than to say I should have used it in past tense.

We are in agreement with questioning an official's integrity. I hope you realize I was just commenting on the reports, not my own feelings.

I gave you my opinion and nothing that you have said to date would give me any pause at all to even think about changing that opinion.

I'm not saying it did. All I'm saying it is human nature to not want to back down anyway. I noticed you said nothing I've said would make you even think about changing your opinion. Whether that has something to do with me personally or your firm belief that using a word as defined is wrong when it says something negative about an official is unknown to me. But it does let me know that talking to you about it implies that it is similar to me talking to a brick wall. That was a (bad?) joke. :D

Don't worry none about me. I'm dumb enough to go with words that fit per definition. If someone can tell me that I'm using the word wrong, I will be big enough to admit it.

My opinion is that I personally wouldn't have used the verbiage that you used. Foster <b>was</b> falsely implicated....emphasis on "was". He was cleared of any implication in what Donaghy was involved in.

A truer heading of this thread imo might have been "Another NBA official <b>cleared</b> of implications." That lets everybody know that the integrity of that official <b>was</b> brought into question but nothing incriminating was ever found.

As I said though, that's just my personal opinion. My opinion doesn't make it right and it also sureashell doesn't mean that anybody else would be wrong if they disagreed with my opinion. And no matter what, it doesn't mean that I'm telling you or anybody else <b>what</b> to post. How you want to use the word "implicated" is completely up to you and no one else.

That concept is completely different than someone disagreeing with what has been already posted. Hopefully I'll never make the mistake of telling you what to post. Whether I agree or disagree with what you post is a whole 'nother (and different) matter.

Don't forget "separate."

Why do you keep going off on a tangent? See the smiley face. :D Accept the smiley face. :D Let the smiley face cleanse you. :D