Tim Donaghy tells all?

[jkumpire]

To those people who saw that last night:

Sorry you wasted an hour of your time.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

To those people who saw that last night:

Sorry you wasted an hour of your time.

I watched it, found it interesting and not a waste of time. To each their own.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

To those people who saw that last night:

Sorry you wasted an hour of your time.

I did not find it a waste of time. It was interesting. It confirmed what I already knew about the man. And I loved how they tried to make a correlation to how many times he picked the right team. Hell, anyone can do that when you are intimately involved in an organization and you know a lot of inside information. Hell I can pick most winners of the high school teams I have and it does not matter who officiates to come to that conclusion. I have yet to have a team lose that I thought was going to win. This is why we call games where teams are not supposed to win, "Upsets."

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not find it a waste of time. It was interesting. It confirmed what I already knew about the man. And I loved how they tried to make a correlation to how many times he picked the right team. Hell, anyone can do that when you are intimately involved in an organization and you know a lot of inside information. Hell I can pick most winners of the high school teams I have and it does not matter who officiates to come to that conclusion. I have yet to have a team lose that I thought was going to win. This is why we call games where teams are not supposed to win, "Upsets."

Peace

Rut - I don't think he meant he just picked winners that much, he meant he picked the teams that beat the spread that much. That's certainly not easy to do. In gambling terms, that's what "winner" means.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Rut - I don't think he meant he just picked winners that much, he meant he picked the teams that beat the spread that much. That's certainly not easy to do. In gambling terms, that's what "winner" means.

I agree with you, but he has information that the average person does not have. He knows the players, coaches and officials intimately. I am sure if I had that information I could get most picks right. It is not like he got 100% right, he got 75%-80% right. And he would also talk to the officials before the game and know who was playing and who was not playing that night. Now he obviously is an intelligent guy as well and probably knew how to bet very well also. But he did not say anything that convinced me that there was a set up to make those outcomes happen. And according the FBI that was shown to also be the case as well.

I guess I do not get the "He was not sincere" aspect. He did not need to be for me to draw a conclusion. Maybe I am just naive, but I do not think we have as much control over games outcomes as many people think we do. And there was an example where Tim D, bet on the Spurs to win a game and he threw out the head coach and they lost and he lost his bet.

Peace

[Adam]

I'll add one more thing. Chances are he only bet on games where he thought he had information that would help him; further increasing the odds of success.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And there was an example where Tim D, bet on the Spurs to win a game and he threw out the head coach and they lost and he lost his bet.

I know that when we, as officials, get into "game mode", many of the calls just come virtually automatically without us having to stop and think about them - and that's how it's supposed to be. I wonder if that's what happened in this case.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I know that when we, as officials, get into "game mode", many of the calls just come virtually automatically without us having to stop and think about them - and that's how it's supposed to be. I wonder if that's what happened in this case.

I saw and heard an interview that Tim D did on the Scott Van Pelt Show. It seemed like he did not want to "indict" anyone else of his behavior. Scott's side kick (I cannot think of his name) thought that Tim D was deflecting responsibility as he never really had evidence. They talked about the Portland-Lakers series several years ago that many people have claimed was fixed and the "sidekick" said that the Trailblazers missed 13 straight shots. Then Tim D could not say there was anything there unless he saw the tape. It is clear to me that Tim D does not have any evidence of anything other than what he did. And his claim in this interview was that he basically was wrong on "insider trading" not fixing games or claiming anyone fixed games. He even said he was the only one. Now if he was not the only one, he would be able to prove it or suggest more than by innuendo.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Also - did any of you notice that the interviewer, while showing one of the Iverson videos, referred to "palming" as a foul? I guess that's to be expected.

[Smitty]

I thought the interview was interesting. I certainly don't trust everything he says to be truth, but you do have to wonder how he was able to get an 80% win rate if everything he says wasn't true. Just sayin'...

[BBall_Junkie]

What I find most interesting about this thread is that Jeremy feels its ok to dump on his fellow officials without any facts and just speak in platitudes. Klassy.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I thought the interview was interesting. I certainly don't trust everything he says to be truth, but you do have to wonder how he was able to get an 80% win rate if everything he says wasn't true. Just sayin'...

As Rut points out, intimate knowledge of the teams will give you that edge. I'll bet the players could do the same thing if picking between two other teams. I'd also bet Donaghy could have done just as well betting on teams he wasn't officiating.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As Rut points out, intimate knowledge of the teams will give you that edge. I'll bet the players could do the same thing if picking between two other teams. I'd also bet Donaghy could have done just as well betting on teams he wasn't officiating.

If you had watched the interview, you'd know that he did bet on many games he wasn't officiating. It was the knowledge about how certain officlals felt about certain players/coaches/owners that were major indicators on how the games would turn out. I don't think betting the spread and winning 80% of the time is easy in any professional sport. He had inside info from other refs. That's compelling.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

If you had watched the interview, you'd know that he did bet on many games he wasn't officiating. It was the knowledge about how certain officlals felt about certain players/coaches/owners that were major indicators on how the games would turn out. I don't think betting the spread and winning 80% of the time is easy in any professional sport. He had inside info from other refs. That's compelling.

Sorry, but I find nothing he says to be compelling. Knowing how other officials call games (tight, loose, etc) and how much crap they take from players could give him this information. This is the intimate knowledge that Rut is alluding to.