Tim Donaghy tells all?

[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.