For those who do not know JR is referencing the KU ticket program because my dear mother is a native of eastern Kansas, and a graduate of KU. And yes, I would recommend the same treatment because I did NOT get my cut of the proceeds, ;).

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Tim Donaghy still owes me his cut plus the vig too, :D.

Evidently not. So far, it looks like everyone in this thread but you is "sticking our heads in the sand." I think that says a lot. There's not a thing you, me, or anyone else here can do about what this convicted felon, liar, and cheat is doing or saying. So I'm certainly not going to validate his claims be reading them, much less listening to him or arguing his points. What he does has zero effect on me.

BTW, if you think Joe Blow is rushing out to buy either of Donaghy's book, you're sadly mistaken. The only time anyone is paying attention to this guy is when his publisher gets some media or radio guy to interview, just to promote his book.

Can I ignore him? Damn right I can.

Canseco had more credibility at the time his first book came out that Donaghy has or will ever have again. Canseco was making claims which most people already suspected anyway, and which had corraborating witnesses.

Donaghy's claims are his and his alone (I don't count conspiracy theorists), and he has no evidence to back it up.

Canseco made claims that were, in and of themselves, credible. Donaghy is making claims that, when scrutinized, seem highly improbable. The number of people who would have to be "in the know" of such a conspiracy (NBA refs purposefully prolonging playoff series) is so high as to make the conspiracy itself nearly impossible.

That difference alone makes the comparison inapt.

I think jbduke actually has made a valid point. We, as officials, are far more than likely to feel as you and many other posters in this do. But I have to agree that it is very likely that non-officials will not feel so strongly against him....and may even believe a lot of what he has to say.

But they did not need this person to feel the way they do. Just like you do not need real facts to have people form their political opinions. Then someone on talk radio can expound on a thought and many folks will buy it hook, line and sinker.

Peace

indignation vs. investigation
 

Playoff blowouts, in series or individual games, and teams overcoming disadvantageous officiating do not discredit Donaghy; officials can do little to make a lousy team beat a good team or to inflict undeserved defeat on a team for which individual effort and team mechanics flow correctly on a given night. Even the most crooked official or player can do little other than tinker at the margins. Overall, though, an empirical view of games and officials compared to Donaghy's betting strategies seems to discredit his claims.

One would also think that someone in law enforcement would have used something Donaghy said to launch a further investigation into the league. It `hasn't happened.

However, I think one would halve to be hopelessly naive to believe that competitive factors do not figure into instructions/evaluations of NBA officials.

Whistleblowers (in the prosecutoral sense of the word) need an incentive and Donaghy has a few, with his own economic survival at the top of the list. I do not reject what he says out of hand, even though the empirical evidence does not seem to support him. He may well have laid it on thick to sell books and make a living. IN that context, any exaggeration buries any truthful kernel ithat may lie beneath his garbage pile ofl lies. Even so, the claims are worthy of investigation, if only to spike them with credibility

You had me til here. Are you saying the NBA evaluators base their evaluations on how the teams are treated during games, with an eye on balancing out the competition? Are you also saying that in order to not believe this claim, one has to be "hopelessly naive?"

As far as I know, he hasn't lied about anything in this matter. He wasn't charged with lying to the feds, which is almost ALWAYS part of any federal prosecution (usually thrown in there in case they can't prove what they are really after and why you should NEVER, EVER speak to a federal LEO without an attorney, but I digress). Yes, he's proven he can take a good thing and piss it away, but I'm not sure we can automatically say that because he's a felon, he isn't telling the truth here.

My question is, what incentive does he have to make these remarks if not true? Getting back at the NBA? Perhaps, but if these things are not true, that will be exposed and he won't get his desired effect of improving his reputation.

By all means, treat what he says with skepticism, but I wouldn't outright ignore it.

I'm not sure you can say it will be exposed if it's not true. He's perpetuating conspiracy theories. For the people who latch on to conspiracy theories, the lack of evidence is often all the proof they need.

His word means nothing to me, without corraborating evidence or witnesses (who would need more credibility than he has).

I think that letters-to-the-editor, emails, phone calls, and casual conversation with friends, can (still) effect change. You seem to disagree. Good to know that inertia is still such a powerful force for good.

I'm sorry, I must have been absent the day the teacher taught everyone else that "reading or listening to something = validating that something." Actually, I'm not sorry. That was a bad day for the teacher.

Cheers.


"Rushing out." Nice pull.


And the only time anyone pays attention to Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow is when he or she is on radio or television. In other words, I have no idea what your point is.


I feel so silly. This whole time I was attempting to convince you that you are absolutely and completely (physically and otherwise) INCAPABLE of ignoring Tim Donaghy or his claims. But you have shown me the light. And the light is, "Nuh-unh." Thank you for that.

So, for those scoring at home: that's one distortion, one non sequitor, a bad premise that I'm struggling to categorize, one you're-not-the-boss-of-me, and two substantive points of disagreement.

Nice post.

dookie, you can be as much of a smartass as you like, I really couldn't care less.

Again, I don't givea$hit what Tim Donaghy writes or says. He has zero credibilty with me, even less than you do...but not by much. Sorry that gets under your skin.

Now, feel free to make more of your little sarcastic, juvenile remarks. I'm done.

That's a little unfair, no? Other than responding to the puerile and cliched "Dookie" by addressing you as "Hole," I didn't think any of my remarks were "little" or "juvenile."

But as always, thanks for responding directly to points of argument rather than resorting to profanity, childish attacks, or name-calling. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Exactly.