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

Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

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

  • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

    Originally posted by pacertom View Post
    I've been a diehard Pacers fan for 38 years (I didn't follow in my pre-kindergarden years) and can objectively say that only twice did I think we may have the best team in the league, going into the playoffs: 1998 & 2000

    Still I was not confident in 1998 due to Jordan. Not due to any special rules, but due to his skill and as I was to find out, their overall defensive intensity which really threw a wrench into our offense. they were a better defensive team, and with Jordan (even diminished) as the go-to guy they were better in getting a basket when their lives depended on it.

    In 2000 I thought we had a shot, though we were pretty gimmicky- a jump shooting team without great rebounding and interior D. In the end we needed to always shoot a much higher percentage to make up for fewer posessions. Kobe killed us in the OT, and Shaq killed us inside. They were flat-out better.

    The 1999 strike season we never gelled. I hated the LJ 4-point play as much as anyone, and we were better than the Knicks, but I think the Spurs were better than us.

    I honestly think we got as much out of those seasons as we could. I would like to re-play the last quarter of game 7 of the ECF against the Bulls in 1998 though.
    I agree for the most part. We got hosed pretty badly in the '99 ECF so it's hard to say how we would have done against the Spurs.

    I think we also had the best team in '04 before the Sheed acquisition.

    Comment


    • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

      Originally posted by rock747 View Post
      I don't think they're arguing the games are "fixed" just that officials are told to call the games certain ways to protect the star player and aid the star teams. In fact, I think that is obvious if you watch an NBA game.
      That's a form of fixing.

      Comment


      • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        Ok, then I'll jiust say the Pacers were never the best team and that is why they never won. - It certainly wasn't because of the refs
        Best for a game, a series, a whole season? The best team does not always win, or horse for that matter.

        Comment


        • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

          If Smits would have been treated like Jordan or any of the other top players in the league, the Pacers would have won at least one title. I can't believe that some of you die hards can't see what occured back then.

          Comment


          • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

            Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
            Best for a game, a series, a whole season? The best team does not always win, or horse for that matter.
            I just never thought the Pacers were the best team during the playoffs in any single season , however even if I did think they were the best team in a given year that doesn't prove some conspiracy

            Comment


            • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

              That's a form of fixing.
              Right, what i am saying is I don't think the winner is pre-determined, but the big market team with big money players is given the edge in games.
              "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

              Comment


              • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                Originally posted by Swingman View Post
                Kstat can't prove that all NBA refs are saints and no one else can prove they have been fixing games (other than Donaghy). So this argument could go on forever.

                What I find funny is Kstat, a Pistons fan, is trying to convince Pacer fans that Stern didn't go overboard when punishing the Pacers for the brawl. We may be biased in our opinions but his opinion isn't clear of bias either.

                Brawl Suspensions levied to Pacers
                Artest - 86 games
                Jackson - 30 games
                Oneal - 25 games (reduced to 15)
                Johnson - 5 games

                BIggest Suspensions not in the brawl
                Sprewell - 68 games for physically assualting his coach during practice
                Kermit Washington - 26 games for punching another player
                Carmelo Anthony - 15 games for punching another player
                (Rodman kicking a cameraman in the nuts doesn't even make the list of long suspensions)

                Ok, so Stern claims the length of suspension was due to entering the stands...

                Antonio Davis suspended for 5 games for confronting a fan in the stands during a game. Yes you read that right, 5 games (not even close to 86)

                Notable: Rasheed Wallace goes after fan on Dec 20th, 2002 for throwing something at him - fined but not suspended.

                I guess it's alright when some players go into stands or go after fans for getting something thrown at them but the Pacers needed to learn a lesson because of a fight that got out of fan which was provoked by Ben Wallace and piston fans.

                Artest and Jackson messed up and were in the wrong but the length of suspension was so far overboard it's not even close. Combine that with the fact that Ben Wallace gets off extremely light for starting the whole thing and you can understand why people here wish Stern the worst.
                I haven't read this entire thread, to lazy to. I agree with most of this post though.

                You forgot Vernon Maxwell, he was a know hot head, had already been in more past trouble than Artest. Mad Max goes up several rows into the stands and punches a fan and only gets 10 games. How does that compute? 10 games vs 86, complete bull.

                Artest gets more than Sprewell? More injustice, Sprewell chokes his coach while saying "I'm going to kill you" and gets less than Artest.

                JO had been a perfect citizen his whole career, he punches a guy that comes on to the floor looking to fight and JO gets punished, makes no sense to me. Fans have came on the field in football and baseball and have been attacked by players and those players never received any punishment.

                Detroit should have had to play at least a few games with no fans in the building. Ben Wallace should have got more punishment for inciting a riot, Ben was the first in the building to throw something, then the fans started.
                Stern socked it to the Pacers way more than needed, I will always hate him for that.
                "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                Comment


                • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                  Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                  Right, what i am saying is I don't think the winner is pre-determined, but the big market team with big money players is given the edge in games.
                  Yeah, this is exactly my belief as well.

                  A game cannot be fixed completely unless EVERYONE is in on it; the refs, the players, the coaches...EVERYONE. I don't believe this to be the case.

                  However, I do believe that certain teams/players are favored intentionally by the refs, whether it be to preserve the best interests of the league or due to a personal bias (or both). I don't see how anyone can watch an NBA game and not see this.

                  Sometimes the favoritism is enough to affect the outcome of the game; sometimes it isn't. But there's no way in hell this flood of poor officiating is only due to poor decision-making by the referees. A lot of them, sure. But not all. There are too many blatant, obvious calls/non-calls that any competent referee would not get wrong, much less THREE of them.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                    Originally posted by Hoop View Post
                    I haven't read this entire thread, to lazy to. I agree with most of this post though.

                    You forgot Vernon Maxwell, he was a know hot head, had already been in more past trouble than Artest. Mad Max goes up several rows into the stands and punches a fan and only gets 10 games. How does that compute? 10 games vs 86, complete bull.

                    Artest gets more than Sprewell? More injustice, Sprewell chokes his coach while saying "I'm going to kill you" and gets less than Artest.

                    JO had been a perfect citizen his whole career, he punches a guy that comes on to the floor looking to fight and JO gets punished, makes no sense to me. Fans have came on the field in football and baseball and have been attacked by players and those players never received any punishment.

                    Detroit should have had to play at least a few games with no fans in the building. Ben Wallace should have got more punishment for inciting a riot, Ben was the first in the building to throw something, then the fans started.
                    Stern socked it to the Pacers way more than needed, I will always hate him for that.
                    Agreed. Suspensions were warranted for sure, but the amazingly lopsided punishments handed down displayed a clear bias against the Pacers (or for the Pistons, however you choose to see it).

                    Comment


                    • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                      I do agree that superstars get calls a lot of other players don't, but there's a totally different reason for that, other than marketing dollars.

                      If you think about it, we have two kinds of phrases when it comes to abnormal whistles: "rookie calls," and "superstars calls." One is positive and the latter is negative.

                      Really, if the NBA wants to pamper its superstars, then does that mean it wants to punish its young, up and coming rookies? What possible purpose would that serve?

                      NBA refs have the toughest job in sports. It isn't even close. They're asked to watch for 20 possible violations every second of the game, and it's impossible to focus on one or two. The human eye can't possible follow everything in detail simultaneously.

                      So how does a human being get around this? They rely on what they know about the player.

                      I remember early in Tayshaun's career, he made a lot of those jaw-dropping blocks like the one he made on reggie miller, and most of them were ruled goaltends. Why? Because it was very hard for the referee to believe Tayshaun could make that kind of play, and more often than not they played it safe.

                      But the more games he played, the more times referees reviewed tapes and saw that he was getting those shots cleanly, he started getting the benefit of the doubt.

                      There's no doubt %90 of the players in the NBA would have been whistled for a goaltend on that Miller block. There is no way in hell any of those refs were in position to make a conclusive call either way. He was awarded a clean block because he had shown himself capable of making that play on a consistent basis, and got the benefit of the doubt. On replay, it was the correct call by a fraction of a second.

                      The more a player shows his unique abilities on the floorand proves himself, the more he's going to get the benefit of that doubt that most players don't. So when the referee is forced to make a judgment call on a play he was not focusing on, (and what the heck in the NBA ISN'T a judgment call?) then he's going to fall back on what he knows about every player involved in the play.

                      Is it fair? Not really, but as long as you have three human beings trying to monitor 100 possible violations per play, at some point something is going to happen out of nowhere, and a call is going to need to be made.

                      Superstar calls are logical, as are rookie calls. They should be more accurately re-named "veteran calls." Every veteran gets certain calls because he has certain abilities that he's shown over his career. It's just more obvious with superstars because Kobe Byrant can get to the rim and force more calls to be made than a guy like PJ Brown.

                      Every young player is taught from the day he starts out that if he keeps performing though every bad whistle he gets, the referees will adjust to his game and he will 'get the calls." It isn't because he'll be more marketable, it's simply because referees will know his game better.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 06-12-2008, 04:38 PM.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                        It's stupidity to only include two out of three refs for the sake of deniability.
                        Chicago Black Sox.

                        Nearly all fixes have only included some people. Vegas isn't rich because it always wins, Vegas is rich because when you sit at Carribean Stud or Roulette or BlackJack you only win 49% of the time/money.

                        So TILTING games a direction in HOPES of getting the outcomes you want is still something you would do, even if they couldn't always get what they wanted.

                        AJ Foyt once claimed another driver must be cheating because that's the only way he could be beaten. The reaction by some was that AJ's logic must be "I'm cheating so I know they must be". This would be one example that even cheaters lose sometimes. (or lottery outcome "adjusters", such as add 5 extra ping pong balls)

                        Fixers don't fix everything and they know they are going to have some attempts fail. But it's still a business where over the long haul things go in the direction you want, enough to help out your financial situation.


                        BTW, I've heard the defense with Stern that "why would he risk his rep now after doing so many good things for the NBA". The problem is what's to say he hasn't used influential tatics from day 1.

                        Not a 100% puppet show, but pushing and nudging as much as he could. The league becomes popular, but then the openly fixed pro wrestling leagues are popular too. Even die hard NBA fans have found themselves wondering from time to time.


                        Personally I think fans complain too often about calls, but at the same time refs clearly do have a wide variance of tolerance. Some guys don't let you touch the elbow, some guys call it tighter at the start than the end, and so on.

                        Lost in all those vague flavors of styles would be if that style was intentional.


                        Personally I'm most bothered by the fact that Stern fined Van Gundy for something that TD just also said was true, that refs were told to call the Dallas/Houston series differently.

                        Even if JVG was sourcing Tim D, he was "right" in the sense that a ref was telling him this. Should he have been fined 100K for that, and magically backed off the statement shortly after? And furthermore, did JVG have a relationship that close with Tim D? Should a ref and coach have that caliber a relationship?

                        Or was JVG citing a different source?
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-12-2008, 04:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                          Originally posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
                          If Smits would have been treated like Jordan
                          Rik Smits is comparable to Michael Jordan. Gotcha.

                          If only the NBA wasn't rigged, we'd all be purchasing "air dutchman" shoes and singing "If I could be like Rik.."

                          This is the best conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                            One thing that I believe points to the whole integrity of the game is, the whole home court advantage idea. No, I am not referring to the obvious advantages of the home court, such as cheering fans or the familiarity of the court. I am pointing at the obvious foul dispaity that the home team consistently benefits from. It is almost written in stone that the home team will get the edge in the officiating. Now to me it seems far fetched that just because you are the home team, you suddenly commit less fouls. Why should the home team get this edge? That's right, the officials can and do call the games differently, geesh, wake up people.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                              Personally I'm most bothered by the fact that Stern fined Van Gundy for something that TD just also said was true, that refs were told to call the Dallas/Houston series differently.
                              Yeah, fine a guy for publicly calling out the integrity of the company he works for, instead of handling it in-house. That's insane.

                              Originally posted by David Stern
                              Hmm...I feel like fixing a series to make the NBA some money.

                              Hey, I know, I'll freeze Yao Ming out of the playoffs! Our ratings will skyrocket!

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: Donaghy letter to court alleges refs altered games

                                We do know one guy was crooked, and before that broke I think a lot of people would have adamantly dismissed the idea that ANY referee was crooked.
                                And that's the key, isn't it. Stern has no one to blame but himself. Whose process let Donaghy get away with this, what company hired him?

                                The fans didn't hire him, the Pacers didn't hire him, and none of us was standing up to the press consistantly suggesting that there is no way this was happening.

                                And worse yet, the NBA was told to look at this guy, did an investigation, and came back with "clean". What's that tell you about the process in place telling us all these other guys are clean?

                                Stern could be right, it could just be TD with sour grapes, but my point since last year remains this - STERN DOESN'T KNOW because his method for finding out already failed badly with TD.

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Yeah, fine a guy for publicly calling out the integrity of the company he works for, instead of handling it in-house. That's insane.
                                But it seems now like JVG was telling the truth. So why fine him? Shouldn't Stern hear what JVG is saying and take it as a serious issue, that someone OTHER THAN JVG is saying this is true. Let's say it was true, why in the world should JVG not be shouting to the rafters, and why in the world would Stern shout him down rather than look into it if he was indeed clean and trying to keep the NBA clean?

                                Maybe the reaction should be "we think JVG has bad info but we are looking into it" rather than "YOU SHUT UP NOW!" It looks bad IMO. JVG didn't say "IMO it's all fixed". JVG was whistle blowing. You don't fine whistle blowers, you commend them for getting the corruption out in the open. Either a liar was giving JVG bad info and action BY STERN should have gone into finding that source or JVG had been told the truth and Stern should have taken action to find out who was handing out that order.
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-12-2008, 04:48 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X