Tim Donaghy interview
 

Howdy.

Thought you might find this interesting. Tim Donaghy was interviewed on the Dan Patrick Show today. Among his comments:

"Donaghy said that the way the playoff series have played out confirm his theory on how officials extend series by giving the trailing teams an edge. Donaghy said they're trained that way because it helps the league financially."

Here's the link to the show: Dan Patrick.com

Many posters on both this Forum and the NFHS Basketball Forum know my background and know my passion for the basketball officiating profession. Tim Donaghy had the best and greatest job in basketball officiating and he pi$$ed on every man and woman who has ever officiated a basketball game at any level, so why in the wide world of basketball offficiating in particular and sports officiating in general would I giving a flying f*** about anything that an a$$hole like Tim Donaghy has to say.

MTD, Sr.

Don't Hold Back, It'll Give You An Ulcer ...
 

Oh c'mon Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Don't pussy foot around the issue. Please tell us what you really think.

Can you say Jose Canseco? Dumped on his colleagues, has an axe to grind. Lots of similar claims.

Canseco was right.

Once you get by the fact that he is a douchebag, unfortunately you are right. In that particular case, you can't kill the messenger.

A similar scenario is going on right now with Floyd Landis and Lance Armstrong.

Canseco was right about some things.

Peace

The fact anyone is giving this lying cheating SOB the time of day is sad enough -- but if you want some actual analysis of the "facts" he is claiming, there was a great piece done last year on ESPN calling a spade a spade:

Tim Donaghy's claims on trial - TrueHoop Blog - ESPN

This is obviously true. Just look at how this year's playoff series have played out. The officials obviously gave Chicago the edge in the first round because they took the Cavs to -- 5 games. Ok, so that's not a good example. But look at the Charlotte series. It's their first time ever in the playoffs, so obviously the officials helped them to extend the series to -- oh wait, they were swept.

Well, never mind the first round. In the second round, the refs were giving the edge to the Hawks, except that -- oh, they lost 4 straight. But in the other Eastern semi, the league OBVIOUSLY needed a Game 7 in Cleveland. I mean, ratings-city for a Celts/Cavs, Bron/KG Game 7, right? Um, no. Boston wrapped it up in Game 6.

But the Western Semis were really close matchups. The officials surely played a part in prolonging the Lakers/Jazz series, except that the Lakers swept. And that great Suns/Spurs rivalry series? Yeah, a sweep.

So, uh. . . what were we talking about?

Good point Scrapper,

His so-called theory works out once in a while and we're supposed to buy it.

Picky, picky, picky.....
 

At least the refs kept all the games close anyhow........well, except for the ones that were blowouts! :rolleyes:

I appreciated the fact that Dan Patrick "hard balled" him on the interview.

Tim Donaghy's voice carries some weight, whether we like it or not. That's why you should care.

Carries weight with whom (Or is that who? :D)?

And no, we should not care and we have the right to dismiss his point of view. For one he is a convicted felon that was not accused of extending series, he was accused of giving inside information on betting information and making money off that information. Sorry, he might have been in the league, but he is still a liar and I would take his response with a grain of salt. And I have a feeling that Dan Patrick did not really challenge his perspective on this. Considering that many of the series have been one sided this year and other years. The NBA Finals last year was basically a sweep too.

Peace

1) No one is questioning your "right to dismiss his point of view." I didn't write about, nor do I care about rights in this case. I care about shoulds.

2) "Carries weight with whom...?"

It carries weight with all of the conspiracy theorists out there who lap up any and every piece of information that would "confirm" their suspicions about how big-money sport works in this country. You and some others seem to be of the opinion that if you find an idea to be nonsensical, then it's completely meaningless and unworthy of your attention. But I don't think it's silly to pay attention when someone with a big microphone slanders me or a group with which I identify.

You are correct, Dookie. If something is nonsensical to me, then it's completely meaningless and unworthy of my attention. I couldn't givea$hit what Donaghy says, which is why I didn't even click on the link provided.

Do you listen to every liberal or conservative nut job who calls into a radio talk show? Based on your post above, you have to.

Let me put it this way. I do not believe what Tim D says because I know people that have worked in the NBA personally. There is a current NBA evaluator in our association and that same person is a Hall of Famer in an association which I happen to be President at this current time. Not to say that everything Tim says is wrong, but I consider the source. He was accused of betting on games by giving information to betters to help decide point spreads. He was never accused of fixing games or claiming to fix games. So what he is saying to make money and smear the people that caught him, I consider him not credible. And there is evidence that shows what he says is not true. If officials are doing what he suggests, they are doing a very bad job right now. Most of the playoffs have been blowouts or one-sided to the point where the media has talked about how long teams have to sit around and not playing basketball. If you choose to believe his crap that is OK. But I do not believe people that claim Obama was born in Kenya because they say it. There is evidence (good evidence) to the contrary. Believe what you want, but do not tell us that we have to go along with this crap because you do.

Peace

this is my first trip into this thread, but all I can really say at this point, Mark, is

+1

The problem is, Donaghy deserves no credibility yet he's being given a microphone that he doesn't deserve.

Critics with no credibility are best ignored.

Canseco had more credibility from the start than this a$$hat will ever have.

I think the claim was that he was born in Singapor, or maybe Malaysia. I don't recall, though, because I don't believe that any more than I believe Sarah Palin's youngest son is actually her grandson.

Wow. Recognizing differences across situations really isn't your strong suit, is it, Hole?

If you can't see the difference between the influence of a former NBA referee who has published a book and has easy access to print media and radio, and that of some random wingnut caller to AM political radio whom no one ever recognized as an authority, then I'm pretty much outta bullets. But since I'm the one claiming to care, I guess I can't give up quite yet.

If you don't want to care, that's fine. And if you don't want to believe that Donaghy's words could have downstream impacts on you, that's your prerogative, too, and we can probably just agree to disagree (amiably).

There are very definite holes in Donaghy's arguments, several of which have been pointed out quite nicely in this thread. Presumably, not everyone is going to see every last one of the flaws, so discussing them with a group of people who have special insight seems like a worthwhile enterprise.

There are those in the non-officiating community who are going to buy everything Donaghy says whole-hog. Obviously there's no changing those minds. But there are also many out there who are truly undecided as to what they think about his stories. Those are the people we have the power to persuade. And we can do that more easily if we're armed with a thorough understanding of what Donaghy and his adherents are saying.

Maybe the whole thing's just not that big a deal to you. And if that's the case, godspeed on your mission not to give a $hit. But it happens to be important to me and, I suspect, many other officials. And sticking our heads in the sand while this guy is spewing garbage, impugning the integrity of officials everywhere, is not going to make his ideas disappear.

History is littered with stories of good people who suffered because they thought that the ridiculous ideas of others weren't worthy of attention. This situation isn't significant in the grand scheme of history, but the lesson is still relevant.

I'm not saying he is right, and I am not saying he is wrong. I see a lot of similarities to Jose however. Canseco was derided in his claims b/c he was: broke, had an axe to grind, in debt, bitter about not being in MLB, still looking for the limelight. Also, he had several run ins with the law. They both have written books and the people they have accused of wrongdoing have denied said wrongdoin We too had an NBA official in our association. He was great at giving back and a great guy with a big heart to help officials get better. I have heard TD mention his name from time to time, so I have an emotional stake in hoping that his claims are not true.
While as officials we are not supposed to cheer for one team or another, I am fervently hoping that TD's claims can be proven patently false. The only thing that concerns me, and I haven't really cared enough to look, is not a series being extended but what point spreads are and are not being covered. Those claims, IMO, have more potential to be dangerous.

Yabut.....

Is Donaghy really impugning all officials or just the NBA officiating staff? And is Donaghy impugning the NBA officiating staff or is he impuging the direction that the NBA officiating staff is being given? Or is it a combination of both?

Does all of that really affect any of us? Or does it affect NBA officials only?

Note that I sureashell don't have the answer to any of those questions, and I'm not sure if anyone does.

So because someone does not agree with you they are sticking their heads in the sand?

Also I do not care that much because I do not spend my time worrying about the NBA. What Donaghy says does not change my life one bit. Just like what Joe West does or does not do in MLB does no change what I do as a baseball umpire.

And we must keep in mind that Donaghy went from making a near $300,000 salary to a half a million dollar house to now having to sell a book to make any money. He probably would not even be allowed to work a high school game at this point for any money. I think he has incentive to talk about the NBA as he can flip this situation into speaking tours and other books so that he will become the so-called expert on NBA corruption. If you want to believe him, go right ahead. I guess you are sticking your head in the sand about the reality of what Donaghy claims he knows.

For the record, I went to an NCAA meeting where an FBI agent spoke about the Donaghy situation as he worked with someone of the people that had incite on the case the government had on Donaghy. The room was full of NCAA D1 Officials and they did not give a damn. They were bored by the topic and thought the issue went on too long. I guess they were wrong for their opinions because you say so. :rolleyes:

Peace

I'm guessing that the irony in your post is completely unintended. Thanks for sharing that this has, in fact, affected you.

Being from Youngstown, Ohio, ;), I know how Donaghy, would have been handled by some of Youngstown's finer,:rolleyes:, citizens and it would have included batting practice using Donaghy's knees, :D.

MTD, Sr.

Do you recommend the same treatment for the fine, upstanding citizens that ran KU's ticket program?

Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk....:D

Yes, but would that be only AFTER he failed to pay his gambling debts on time!!:D

How did it affect me? My career has not changed one bit because of this fool. You must not know what really affects people's lives.

Peace

Uh, what? There were 4 sweeps that I can think of off the top of my head and another 5 game series. Maybe more I can't remember. And I guarantee the league would have wanted a game 7 in the Boston-Cleveland series. 4 sweeps is a lot. This almost DISPROVES the assertion, it surely doesn't support it.

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.