Another NBA official implicated
 

I'm not sure if anyone cares, but Scott Foster supposedly talked to Tim Donaghy over 130 times during his last season (something like that). The calls were right before and right after games. What I read said the most he talked to another official was 13 times.

Foster is from the DC area; I met him a while ago and he seemed to be a nice guy.

I care Tom.

I sincerely hope that Scott has not done anything unsavory.
He is a heck of a nice guy who came from the same HS board in which I started. He used to come back and give talks and help the newer officials.

BTW he worked his first game in the NBA Finals this past season.

Why would you write, "Another NBA official implicated"? He talked to the guy. Has he been charged with a crime? Has a grand jury met on him? Has he been fired?

You're as bad as the damn press.

I do not think this is a big deal. I am sure they are friends and he is thinking about his situation. Maybe it was a lack of judgment to talk to him as often, but I bet he was not the only one that talked to him that was on the NBA Staff.

Peace

Tony,
Here's the whole ESPN article:

Report: Donaghy made calls to another NBA referee

ESPN.com news service

NBA Referee's Name Linked To Donaghy's Phone Records

NEW YORK -- Former NBA referee Tim Donaghy made more than 100 phone calls to a fellow official at the same time he was providing information to gamblers during the 2006-07 season, Fox News reported Monday.
Citing court documents and phone records it obtained, Fox reported Donaghy placed 134 calls to referee Scott Foster between October 2006 and April 2007, the period during which he has confessed to betting on games or passing on game information to gamblers.
It's not known what information was exchanged during the calls between Foster and Donaghy, who is awaiting sentencing later this month in federal court.
Reached for comment by Fox, Foster was asked if he was being investigated by the NBA, the government or anyone else.
"Not that I know of," he said.
Foster declined to comment on his relationship with Donaghy and the nature of the calls.
In a statement on Monday, the NBA said that Foster was interviewed.
"The government had complete access to Tim Donaghy's phone records and thoroughly investigated this matter, including conducting an interview of referee Scott Foster," the statement said. "The government has said that they have found no evidence of criminal conduct aside from that of Mr. Donaghy. Once again, the only criminal conduct is that of Mr. Donaghy."
<!--Tim Frank, the NBA's vice president of basketball communications, said in a statement on Friday that "Lawrence Pedowitz's independent review is ongoing."
Pedowitz, a former chief of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, was named by commissioner David Stern last year to head the league's investigation of Donaghy.-->
Fox reported on Monday that the NBA is not aware of any further criminal investigation ongoing in the case.
Donaghy, 41, pleaded guilty last year to felony charges of taking cash payoffs from gamblers in the 2006-07 season. He faces up to 33 months in prison at his July 29 sentencing.
According to a story published Monday on Fox News' Web site, the majority of the phone calls lasted no more than two minutes and occurred before and after games Donaghy officiated and on which he admits wagering.
Stern has called Donaghy a "rogue, isolated criminal" acting on his own, without the cooperation of any other referees or league officials.
The only person Donaghy called more often (150 times) was Thomas Martino, to whom Donaghy has said he provided picks to win games and who was the middleman between the former ref and a bookie named James Battista. During this period, the most calls Donaghy made to any other referee were 13, Fox said.
Battista and Martino, who pleaded guilty to defrauding the NBA, are to be sentenced on July 24.
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report

With emphasis on...."The government had complete access to Tim Donaghy's phone records and thoroughly investigated this matter, including conducting an interview of referee Scott Foster," the statement said. "The government has said that they have found no evidence of criminal conduct aside from that of Mr. Donaghy. Once again, the only criminal conduct is that of Mr. Donaghy."

Gee - I wonder how many times he called Domino's? :rolleyes:

I care too, Tom. I consider Scott to be my NBA mentor and hope nothing unsavory comes of this latest media report. He was having such a great year having done two games in the NBA Finals. Now he'll proably be stuck trying to disprove any allegations of wrongdoing. I occassionally speak to him by email or phone, and I've wanted to contact him all day. However, I'm sure he would not be able to say much.

Who's Domino?

I agree.

It's that company other people call for pizza. ;)

Yes, I've read the story, which is how I know the answers to the questions I asked. He's not been implicated so it confuses me why someone would write that he has been.

We have lots of people who call each other on their way to and from a game. Nothing illegal about having been friedns with the guy.

Daryl "The Preacher" Long talk at least a couple of times a week about basketball officiating and baseball/softball umpiring. Does that mean we are conspiring to have the Elmwood Jr. H.S.'s girls' 8th grade basketball team beat the point spread against its hated rival Eastwood Jr. H.S.? :D

MTD, Sr.

Me too.

The NBA and the government have already investigated Foster and found nothing there. He hasn't been <b>"implicated"</b> in any way.

If Tomegun has information implicating Foster in that mess, maybe he should share that info with the NBA and the government.

I think tomegun's point is that the referee was being implicated by the media; a sort of guilt by association. I'd seen (but not read) the foxsports report, and decided not to post it here because it didn't seem like there really was anything to it; although I considered posting it anyway figuring it would be a topic worth discussing.
Does it look weird? Sure, but I guessed (correctly it seems) that the feds had access to those records already and would have taken their opportunity to explore that line of evidence.
My guess is it's Donaghy's attempt to smear other officials, even former friends, by leaking the info to the press.

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

Stick the smiley face up your azz. :D

Classic response... Thanks, I just spit Pepsi all over my monitor.

The Pepsi incident could've been avoided if you only took heed to the following statement

Maybe that's where it came from.

Implication doesn't mean fact, it mean possibility or suggestion. The pattern of phone calls, all by themselves, implicate him...no matter what any person reads into the calls or what the calls were about. The pattern of calls suggest possible involvement in Donaghy's crimes....that's all.

Does it prove it? Of course not.

Was he involved? Probably not, but such phone calls do call him into question (implicate him).

Have they disproven his involvement? I doubt that too. It's pretty hard to prove something didn't happen.

I'm all for assuming innocence but, if more & more suggestive evidence appears to connect him with crimes, it will still lead the NBA to terminate him...employement actions as well as civil actons require far less concrete evidence than criminal convictions.

Help From Noah Webster ...
 

Implicate
Definition im·pli·cate (im′pli kāt′)
transitive verb -·cat′ed, -·cat′·ing
- to show to have a connection with a crime, fault, etc.; involve
- to show to be involved or concerned

Implicate
Synonyms implicate
v. involve, connect, cite, impute, associate, tie up with, charge, incriminate, inculpate, stigmatize, link, catch up in, draw in, relate, compromise, ensnare, embroil, mire, entangle, entail;

Let's Be Objective...
 

Isn't is automatically an "implication" if NO OTHER REF IN THE NBA would want to be the guy one either end of the 134 calls, right?

Also, up further review (not mine) there appears to be a "strange" pattern at least to the calls:

Calls between Foster, 41, and Donaghy, also 41, took place immediately before and after 54 of the 57 games Donaghy officiated from the beginning of the 2006-2007 season until mid-March, when his role in the gambling operation apparently ended. Records also show a vast majority of the calls came in the hours before or after games officiated by Donaghy or Foster.

Donaghy’s phone records for one of those days, Dec. 30, obtained by Fox News, reveal the following:

— 10:34 a.m. – Donaghy calls Foster.

— 10:35 a.m. – Donaghy calls another referee.

— 10:36 a.m. – Donaghy calls Martino, the “middleman” between him and his bookie.

— 10:39 a.m. – Donaghy calls Foster.

— 5:15 p.m. – Donaghy calls Martino.

— 5:23 p.m. – Donaghy calls Martino.

— 7 p.m. – Donaghy referees game between the Miami Heat and the Orlando Magic. The Magic win in a rout, 97-68.

— 8 p.m. – Foster referees a game between the Toronto Raptors and the Memphis Grizzlies in Memphis. The Grizzlies win 110-104. Foster and Donaghy speak 12 minutes after the game.

— 11:27 p.m. – Foster and Donaghy speak for at least the fourth time of the day.

— 11:38 p.m. – Foster and Donaghy speak for at least the fifth time of the day.

The following day, Donaghy spoke with Foster at 1:37 p.m., for two minutes. One minute later, at 1:40 p.m., Donaghy spoke to Martino, also for two minutes.

On a number of other days:

— Donaghy placed three calls to Foster before Donaghy refereed the Jan. 19, 2007, game between the New Orleans Hornets and the San Antonio Spurs. The next day, he called Foster three more times.

— On Jan. 27, Donaghy had the day off, but he called Foster five times, each time for no more than two minutes, before Foster refereed a game that night between the Sacramento Kings and Dallas Mavericks.

— On Jan. 18, the next day, Donaghy and Foster spoke three more times.

— On Feb. 2, before Donaghy refereed a game in Boston between the Celtics and Los Angeles Clippers, he made three more calls to Foster. He called Foster again after the game, then immediately called Martino.

Only three game days do not show calls to Foster:

— Nov. 29, when the L.A. Clippers hosted Memphis;

— Jan. 22, when Donaghy was in Toronto and, according to court records, used calling cards to place all of his calls;

— Jan. 24, when Cleveland hosted Philadelphia and Donaghy used the same calling card. On Jan. 23, however, Donaghy’s cell phone records show two calls to Foster.

Donaghy might logically communicate with other referees he was officiating with, and there are many such calls in Donaghy’s records. But Donaghy and Foster did not referee a single game together during the 2006-2007 season.

Donaghy also had three other cell phone numbers registered in his name, all of which he used. But he called Foster using the phone the feds say he designated for mostly gambling-related use.

The short calls with Foster stopped abruptly in mid March 2007, when Donaghy is believed to have stopped his gambling.

AND THEN IT GETS REALLY "STRANGE":

Big Money UNDEFEATED in Accused Ref's Games
by RJ_Bell on 07/16/2008 8:00 AM
Statistics indicate that NBA Referee Scott Foster Affected Games

Las Vegas, Nevada (7/15/08) News reports have revealed that NBA referee Scott Foster was involved in over 130 suspicious phone calls with disgraced ref Tim Donaghy. An examination by RJ Bell of Pregame.com of betting patterns in Scott Fosters games raises even more questions.

During the 2006-07 period under investigation, seven games refereed by Scott Foster had lopsided enough betting on one team to move the point spread by at least 2 points; those seven teams were undefeated against Vegas meaning that the big-money gamblers won a 7 of 7 times on Fosters games; the odds of that happening randomly are less than 1%.Statistics alone cannot convict, but its certainly noteworthy that seven times in Fosters games one team was bet extremely heavily, and all seven times that team won, said RJ Bell of Pregame.com.

Two of those seven games stand out: On January 19, 2007 the Kings opened as a 1.5 favorites at Boston; betting on Sacramento moved the line to -4.5. Kings won by 5, shooting 25 free throws, versus only 14 free throws for the home team Celtics. On March 20, 2007 the Nuggets opened as 2.5 point underdogs at New Jersey. Denver was bet so heavily, they closed as 1 point favorites. Denver won by 4, shooting 32 free throws versus only 22 for the home team Nets.

In prior reporting widely carried by the national media, RJ Bell of Pregame.com uncovered that big-money bettors won 15 straight lopsidedly bet games refereed by Tim Donaghy during the 2006-2007 season.

Inside the numbers of this study: Teams bet in a disproportionate fashion typically win only around 50% against the Las Vegas line. Wins and losses determined against the opening number. The time frame considered: Opening Day 2006 through March 31, 2007.

MEDIA NOTE: Print, radio, TV, and Internet media should feel free to quote any information above. Please attribute: RJ Bell of Pregame.com.

For complete game-by-game details, follow-up questions, or media appearances email: [email protected]

About RJ Bell of Pregame.com
RJ Bell, president of http://Pregame.com, has been featured on CBS News with Katie Couric, ABC News with Charles Gibson, Nightline, Sportscenter, Outside the Lines (ESPN), First Take (ESPN2), ESPN.com, ESPN National Radio, Yahoo, AOL.com, CNN.com and in Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Associated Press, LA Times, Newsweek.com, Maxim, and Forbes.

If that info is true, then I think it looks bad for Foster.

If it's true, I'd bet the feds already looked into it. Good grief.

True. Public perception about this guy wll be harmed, though.

Only if the real media get irresponsible and pick up Bell's story. Unless there's more to it than Bell, I'll be surprised if it has real legs.

And if they did, the fact that there are no charges doesn't mean much. It may mean that just don't have enough to get a conviction....doesn't mean he's innocent. And, on the flip side, he may be completely innocent.

Now, what's that word that is so important to officials????

Ah, yes....perception!!

You are right that it is about perception, but is it a fair case of perception? And as officials do we really need to feed into that "perception."

Remember the general public thinks we are all corrupt or play favorites and all this situation did was "confirm" that for many people. I just think we need to be careful to make insinuations based on very innocent activity.

I know officials that work HS games that cannot get off the phone before, during halftime or after games to call just about everyone they know.

Peace

No, not when Donaghy is the one calling Foster. I can call anybody I want 100 times a day and if they are nice enough to answer the phone, then I guess I can implicate them when I get caught doing something ugly - maybe these are CYA calls. Those who are investigating this will have all the facts possible and until Foster gets charged with something, then there is no real implication. We are presumed innocent in this country.

Statistical spreads will be beat - that's the nature of statistics. I don't see any quoted statistics about the likelihood of game outcomes where Foster/Donaghy did not talk [and am not really interested in them anyway].

My favorite..
 

Coincidence?
 

1) Why did the calls stop when Donaghy stopped betting?

2) Why did Donaghy call Foster with his "gambling" phone?

3) Why aren't there a flurry of short calls on "off" days? (when you presumably have more time to shoot the breeze with your referee buddy)

No one said Foster was guilty, but to say he hasn't been implicated is delusional. Guilty and implicated are not the same (i.e. you can be one without the other)....hopefully that is the case here as Scott is one of the best officials in the world.

Maybe Donaghy was picking Foster's brain for information to give to his bookie; unbeknownst to Foster.

Who knows, and who cares?

While I admit not really caring TOO much, there is a part of me that is following this just because it does affect all of us in some way. How many good priests are affected now by the few bad ones? Fans may call us "homers" now, with nothing to really back up their feelings. But if this turns out to be true, it could paint us all with a bad brush.

Perception is reality. (Seems to me I've read that somewhere...)

I don't really disagree with you, M. I was listening to ESPN radio on the way home tonight, and they were talking about this. I'll agree it looks fishy.

However, I have a very hard time believing the prosecutors didn't investigate this line thoroughly; I'd be willing to bet Foster's finances were even combed.

I have an even harder time thinking that if they found anything, they would have swept it under the rug.

Rerun: Perception Versus Truth
 

People only see what they are prepared to see. Ralph Waldo Emerson Quotes

Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. Anthony J. D'Angelo

There is no truth. There is only perception. Gustave Flaubert

Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.
What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality. Gary Zukav

The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend. Henri Bergson

<i>"Doobie Doobie Do"</i>...Frank Sinatra

"D'oh!" - Homer Simpson

"STFU." - Dan