Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381842,00.html


    EXCLUSIVE: NEW YORK — NBA referee Tim Donaghy made repeated phone calls to a second referee at the same time he provided inside information to professional gamblers during the course of the 2006-2007 season, according to court documents and phone records obtained by FOXNews.com.

    The records show Donaghy placed 134 calls to referee Scott Foster — more than the 126 calls Donaghy made to his bookie — between October 2006 and April 2007, the period during which he has confessed to either betting on games or passing on game information to gamblers. The majority of the phone calls lasted no more than two minutes and occurred prior to and after games Donaghy officiated and on which he admits wagering.

    With the exception of 150 calls Donaghy placed to Thomas Martino, to whom he says he provided “picks” to win games and who was the middleman between the disgraced referee and a bookie named James Battista, the ex-ref phoned no one more than he called Foster. During this period, the most calls Donaghy made to any other referee were 13.

    It’s unclear what information was exchanged during the calls between Foster and Donaghy, who is awaiting sentencing later this month in federal court after reaching a plea deal in the case. Federal prosecutors in the case declined to comment on this report. But former federal prosecutors not involved in the investigation say the frequency and duration of the calls, as well as the days they took place, are suspicious.

    The new information may call into question insistent claims by NBA Commissioner David Stern that Donaghy was a “rogue, isolated criminal” acting on his own, without the cooperation of any other referees or league officials.

    Donaghy has countercharged that the NBA is rife with corruption, and has even accused some league executives of game-fixing during the playoffs. Stern has not wavered, dismissing the claims and calling Donaghy a “singing, cooperating witness” seeking a shorter prison term.

    The conversations with Foster and others have led authorities to suspect the NBA betting scandal goes beyond Donaghy, sources close to the investigation told FOXNews.com.

    Law enforcement sources close to the case say the FBI has investigated anyone who showed up in Donaghy’s phone records. In a statement Friday, Tim Frank, NBA Vice President of Basketball Communications, said, '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 Stern last year to head the league's investigation.) The NBA says it is not aware of any further criminal investigation ongoing in the case.

    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.

    FOXNews.com reached Foster at the same cell phone number found in Donaghy’s phone records and asked him if he was being investigated by the NBA, the government or anyone else. “Not that I know of,” he said. He declined to comment on his relationship with Donaghy and the nature of the calls.

    When called for comment again on Thursday, a voice message announced the person at this number “is not accepting calls at this time.”

    Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson of Los Angeles has not seen the phone records, but told FOXNews.com the calls could be critical in the investigation.

    “Phone records are a prosecutor’s essential tool,” Levenson said. “People don’t realize how much you can find out about a person’s life by going through their phone records. You can basically reconstruct someone’s entire day — see who they talked to, where they went, everything.”

    She said investigators could look for others involved in Donaghy’s scheme “by isolating those dates where games were in question and isolating the pattern.”

    Levenson said it’s important to look for corroborating evidence to support a possible connection, but even without it, the calls are still damning.

    “Law cases are made by circumstantial evidence,” she said. “In most cases that’s all you have; you don’t have a confession or a video tape….”

    Former federal prosecutor Edward A. McDonald, who prosecuted the Boston College point shaving trial in 1981 and is now a defense attorney, told FOXNews.com there could be ways to explain the pattern of calls between Donaghy and Foster.

    “Suppose the guy has these conversations — within different circumstances, of course — and they owned a chain of restaurants together and they contact their friends who owned the restaurants in different cities, so before the game he reaches out to the friend asking for contacts in other cities to get reservations for after the game.

    “Is it possible that he’s just pumping the other referee for wisdom? I don’t know what refs talk about, maybe they talk about preparing for tonight’s games,” he said. “That guy could have perfectly plausible explanation for why Donaghy was calling him.”

    Donaghy pleaded guilty last August to using inside information to give winning picks to professional gamblers, who paid him when he picked correctly. He said he used a system of one-word codes to communicate his picks over his cell phone to Martino.

    He provided picks both for games he refereed as well as for games he did not, and his record was 27 wins, 10 losses, according to sealed court documents obtained by FOXNews.com. He was initially paid $2,000 for each winning pick, and the amount was raised to $5,000 per winner after eight of his first 10 picks were winners.

    Donaghy faces a maximum of 33 months when he’s sentenced on July 29.

    As part of the plea deal, prosecutors said in court that “There is no evidence that Donaghy ever intentionally made a particular ruling during a game in order to increase the likelihood that his gambling pick would be correct. He has acknowledged, however, that he compromised his objectivity as a referee because of this personal financial interest in the outcome of NBA games, and that this personal interest might have subconsciously affected his on-court performance.”

    Prosecutors had earlier praised Donaghy for his cooperation in the case, and in a May filing they asked the judge to show leniency at his sentencing. But in a more recent letter, they announced Donaghy’s cooperation did not result in any prosecutable crimes and therefore the ex-ref should not be granted leniency.

    Donaghy gave his picks to Martino, 42, of Boothwyn, Pa., who would relay them to a bookie named James Battista, 43, of Phoenixville, Pa.

    Martino pleaded guilty to charges of transmitting wagering information, wire fraud and obstruction of justice; he faces a maximum of 18 months in jail. Battista pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transmit wagering information; he faces a maximum prison sentence of 16 months.

    Sentencing for the two had been scheduled for July 11 in Federal Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., but on Wednesday it was rescheduled for July 24.

    Two other men — Jack Concannon, who placed bets for Donaghy for four seasons beginning in 2003 (officials say they split the winnings), and another bookie, Peter Ruggieri — have been named in open court as cooperating witnesses who were involved in Donaghy’s gambling. Neither has been charged.

    • Click here for profiles of the people involved in the NBA betting scandal.

    • Click here for a timeline of Tim Donaghy's involvement in the NBA betting scandal.

    Copyright © 2008 FOXNews.com

  • #2
    Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

    I've been saying for a long time where there's smoke, there's fire regarding this.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

      I think saying I told you so would fit nicely.

      It was just too easy a scam to pull off for only one person to realize and execute. If they're willing to downgrade plane tickets to make more cash, why would betting be out of the question?
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

        I bet he tried out for the Pacers one day... That would explain everything..

        Now keep watching that.. maybe the headline will change..

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

          Boy, the idea of bet relaying sure comes to mind. It may be circumstantial but it's not like Shawne didn't get blasted for the company he kept. Foster clearly kept unusual company with a guy neck deep in a betting scandal, and apparently the contact was ramped way, way up during TD's main betting efforts.

          Uh oh. Stern will deny. Stern could get caught with the cold envelope in his pocket and he'd deny it. It's the Eddie Murphy routine ("wasn't me"). I just wonder if it's going to work this time.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

            Scott Foster is one of the best refs in the NBA - I would put him probably somehwre between 6 and about 12.

            Phone calls don't really prove anything - we'll see what comes out .

            Good to see so many are willing to always believe the worst

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

              This looks really really bad.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                During this period, the most calls Donaghy made to any other referee were 13.
                ...
                But Donaghy and Foster did not referee a single game together during the 2006-2007 season.
                ...
                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.
                Ouch.

                Scott Foster is on my short list of really horrible referees. He's the only ref I've ever seen **** with a pre-season game.

                [edit]
                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                Scott Foster is one of the best refs in the NBA
                Why didn't I see that coming.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                  Gee, I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you..... NOT!

                  Instead of contsantly trying to squash all details of the investigation and calling Doughny a liar all the time, how about you REALLY investigate this Stern and do something about it instead of taking a year with an independant investiagtor to wait for the smoke to clear and say you didn't find anything.......
                  Last edited by Gyron; 07-14-2008, 04:35 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    Ouch.

                    Scott Foster is on my short list of really horrible referees. He's the only ref I've ever seen **** with a pre-season game.
                    Really? I think he's one of the best.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Really? I think he's one of the best.
                      Is there anything you and Kegboy agree on? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything.

                      As for all the phone calls I say it's a big bunch of nothing. Obviously Tim wanted to know when his wife was coming home and wanted to remind her to bring home the bank card with her. (I'm sure David Stern would prefer that scenario to what the truth might be.)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Scott Foster is one of the best refs in the NBA - I would put him probably somehwre between 6 and about 12.

                        Phone calls don't really prove anything - we'll see what comes out .

                        Good to see so many are willing to always believe the worst
                        By the same token I am shocked to see how many fans are willing to turn a blind eye to any negative publicity.

                        A NBA referee could admit to fixing a game and have evidence of him and his colleagues pulling of said fix and I am willing to bet you would see we need to let everything play out and stop being so negative.

                        Do I think a phone call proves anything? NO. They simply could have been talking about missed calls or what kind of sandwich at Potbellys is the best (I prefer the smoked ham on wheat, but the wreck is pretty good as well)

                        What I am willing to do is consider ANY and ALL possibilities. We already know Stern will deny anything and everything, and he always had. All I am saying is my philosophy on this issue is "Where there is smoke more times then not there is fire". Could I be wrong? Sure, I could be. But I have always felt that something like this was way to big to be pulled off by one person, be it a person up top or just another referee.

                        Bash away.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Scott Foster is one of the best refs in the NBA - I would put him probably somehwre between 6 and about 12.

                          Phone calls don't really prove anything - we'll see what comes out .

                          Good to see so many are willing to always believe the worst
                          Come on Buck. Like I said, Shawne was blasted for the company he was keeping. The brevity of these calls and the timing with the calls to the bookie look massively suspicious. Pair this with him ONLY calling Foster basically.

                          Just pals always looking to get restaurant tips. Just happens to be calling him during the peak of his gambling scandal. I mean where are the 10 minute catch up chats. I call friends for advice and the calls often run longer than expected.

                          Cripes Gnome and I turn 5 minute calls into girlish 45 minute marathons. But these 2 only need 90 seconds to say it all...5 times a day.


                          Let me take it further and say that probably just our exchange in this thread, if done on the phone, would last at least as long as their calls. Think about the kinds of conversations these represent, and multiple times in one day.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-14-2008, 04:36 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                            Originally posted by juadam09 View Post
                            By the same token I am shocked to see how many fans are willing to turn a blind eye to any negative publicity.
                            In this day and age if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck it's a duck on steroids smoking weed with a gun in his hand (I mean under his wing) on his way to place a bet with his bookie the mob's transvestite prostitute who moonlights as the bouncer at Club Rio.
                            Last edited by grace; 07-14-2008, 04:37 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Disgraced NBA Referee's Phone Calls to Second Ref (Scott Foster) Raise Questions

                              Originally posted by grace View Post
                              In this day and age if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck it's a duck on steroids smoking weed with a gun in his hand (I mean under his wing) on his way to place a bet with his bookie the mob's transvestite prostitute who moonlights as the bouncer at Club Rio.
                              2015 and 2016 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X