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

Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

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

  • #61
    Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

    Originally posted by Robertmto View Post
    yes, he bet games HE REFFED AGAINST THE SPREAD, where does that say he FIXED GAMES, AGAINST THE SPREAD? you are just assuming
    Wait a minute....

    You're going to try and tell me that he called the games 100% to the best of his ability, regardless if he was going to cover the spread or not?

    HAHAHAHA okay....

    If you were him, and you had a bet riding on a game with a point spread of, say, five points, wouldn't you try to influence the game to make sure that you covered your bet? Most certainly.

    And you're definitely going to do that if you are giving the mob advice on who they should place their bets with.

    If he has money riding on a game that he referee'd, you can bet your *** he made calls to help make sure he won that bet.

    EDIT: That's like being caught with a test answer key, and trying to say that you didn't look at the answers, you just wanted to see the questions. Of course you're going to fix the game, if you have the power to do so!!

    EDIT2: And he wasn't charged of "fixing" games because, like it's already been said, the NBA is entertainment. The general public isn't guaranteed any outcome at all. Illegal betting is against the law. Fixing a game/race/whatever is not.

    Which is why wrestling, eventhough it's fixed, is legal.
    Last edited by Since86; 06-23-2011, 04:31 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

      Just finished reading the book. I recommend it to any NBA fan. Everything he says is reasonable and does not come off as bitter in any way. In fact, it all seems very plausible. He passed polygraph tests that confirmed he was telling the truth about Dickb Bavetta being brought in to manipulate outcome of games. Pretty interesting. The book flows well too. A good read. Even if you are very skeptical, it is still worth it.
      "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


      • #63
        Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Wait a minute....

        You're going to try and tell me that he called the games 100% to the best of his ability, regardless if he was going to cover the spread or not?

        HAHAHAHA okay....

        If you were him, and you had a bet riding on a game with a point spread of, say, five points, wouldn't you try to influence the game to make sure that you covered your bet? Most certainly.

        And you're definitely going to do that if you are giving the mob advice on who they should place their bets with.

        If he has money riding on a game that he referee'd, you can bet your *** he made calls to help make sure he won that bet.

        EDIT: That's like being caught with a test answer key, and trying to say that you didn't look at the answers, you just wanted to see the questions. Of course you're going to fix the game, if you have the power to do so!!

        EDIT2: And he wasn't charged of "fixing" games because, like it's already been said, the NBA is entertainment. The general public isn't guaranteed any outcome at all. Illegal betting is against the law. Fixing a game/race/whatever is not.

        Which is why wrestling, eventhough it's fixed, is legal.
        THE NBA CLEARED HIM OF ANY "FIXING" OF GAMES!!!! What don't u understand? Are you REALLY trying to tell me that IF PLAUSIBLE Stern wouldn't have burned TD's reputation on a stake just to make the NBA look innocent?

        Everytime i read this forum you refuse to be wrong. convinced you argue just to have something to do all day
        STARBURY

        08 and Beyond

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

          Wow, two weeks later.

          Obviously you're not taking the time to actually read what I wrote.

          He cannot be charged with "fixing" any games. BECAUSE IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.

          We can pause so you can read that again. Read it a second time? Okay good, we can continue.

          If a "fixed" game was illegal, then we wouldn't have professional wrestling. Contrary to popular belief, WWE TNA whatever you watch is fake. The matches are FIXED.

          OH NO! FIXED MATCHES! CALL THE COPS!!

          But sadly, there isn't a crime being commited. It's the exact same thing with any professional sport. Football, baseball, basketball, badminton, whatever sport you want to think of.

          So because entertainment cannot be "fixed" there is no "fixing" crime towards Donaghy.

          What you're failing to understand is that he was charged with crimes AS A RESULT of him fixing the games. He "fixed" the games in order to bet on them. "Fixing" a game isn't illegal, betting on them is.

          Thank you for the personal jab though. I appreciate it. Now back to your reading comprehension lessons.

          EDIT: And Stern didn't "burn" Donaghy's reputation because Donaghy did a pretty good job of that himself. Stern wanted as much distance from him as possible, which is why he called him "rogue." It was a dicey situation for the NBA, and Stern wasn't going to roll around in the mud with him.

          He tried washing his hands of the situation as quickly and as quietly as possible to keep the image of the NBA, and it's officials, in tact as much as possible.

          It wouldn't have done any good to push Donaghy's face in the mud, because all it would have done was put mud on Stern's hands.

          But whatever, keep telling yourself that he bet on games that he referee'd but didn't influence the outcome at all. Because we all know a convict wouldn't cheat.
          Last edited by Since86; 07-08-2011, 09:33 AM.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            Wow, two weeks later.

            Obviously you're not taking the time to actually read what I wrote.

            He cannot be charged with "fixing" any games. BECAUSE IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.

            We can pause so you can read that again. Read it a second time? Okay good, we can continue.

            If a "fixed" game was illegal, then we wouldn't have professional wrestling. Contrary to popular belief, WWE TNA whatever you watch is fake. The matches are FIXED.

            OH NO! FIXED MATCHES! CALL THE COPS!!

            But sadly, there isn't a crime being commited. It's the exact same thing with any professional sport. Football, baseball, basketball, badminton, whatever sport you want to think of.

            So because entertainment cannot be "fixed" there is no "fixing" crime towards Donaghy.

            What you're failing to understand is that he was charged with crimes AS A RESULT of him fixing the games. He "fixed" the games in order to bet on them. "Fixing" a game isn't illegal, betting on them is.

            Thank you for the personal jab though. I appreciate it. Now back to your reading comprehension lessons.

            EDIT: And Stern didn't "burn" Donaghy's reputation because Donaghy did a pretty good job of that himself. Stern wanted as much distance from him as possible, which is why he called him "rogue." It was a dicey situation for the NBA, and Stern wasn't going to roll around in the mud with him.

            He tried washing his hands of the situation as quickly and as quietly as possible to keep the image of the NBA, and it's officials, in tact as much as possible.

            It wouldn't have done any good to push Donaghy's face in the mud, because all it would have done was put mud on Stern's hands.

            But whatever, keep telling yourself that he bet on games that he referee'd but didn't influence the outcome at all. Because we all know a convict wouldn't cheat.
            Umm, it's not illegal to fix contests that are legally bet on? I think a problem would arise here... Are you sure about that? Also, it has been proven that Donahgy did not fix 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


            • #66
              Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

              its sad that u think that is true.
              STARBURY

              08 and Beyond

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                Holy bump....

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                  Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                  Umm, it's not illegal to fix contests that are legally bet on? I think a problem would arise here... Are you sure about that? Also, it has been proven that Donahgy did not fix games.
                  Like horseracing? Yes, it is illegal to "fix" a horse race by giving a horse dope. No, it's not illegal because it was "unfair," but rather it's illegal because it's abusing the horse.

                  Do boxers get arrested for taking a dive? No.

                  EDIT: I'm not using this because it's wiki, but because of the language being used because obviously a couple of you are having trouble wrapping your minds around the concept.



                  Match fixing does not necessarily involve deliberately losing a match. Occasionally, teams have been accused of deliberately playing to a draw or a fixed score where this ensures some mutual benefit (e.g. both teams advancing to the next stage of a competition.)
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_f..._a_fixed_score

                  Oh, and look at this...
                  Fixing the result of a more particular proposition might be seen as less likely to be noticed - for example, scandalized former National Basketball Association referee Tim Donaghy has been alleged to have perpetrated some of his fixes by calling games in such a manner as to ensure more points than expected were scored by both teams, thus affecting "over-under" bets on the games whilst also ensuring that Donaghy at least did not look to be outright biased. Also, bets are increasingly being taken on individual performances in team sporting events, which in turn has seen the rise of a phenomenon known as spot-fixing, although it is currently unlikely that enough is bet on an average player to allow someone to place a substantial wager on them without being noticed.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_f...in_team_sports

                  And here's a good example at a team throwing a game, and it wasn't illegal.

                  For example, in the closing game of the 2004 season, the Indianapolis Colts faced the Denver Broncos. With a win, the Broncos would advance to the playoffs as a wild card and face the Colts as their first round playoff opponent. It would seem the Colts had little incentive to win as their loss would ensure that they would play a team they dominated in the 2003 Wild Card game. Sure enough, the Colts rested their starters, lost the game, and went on to blow out the Broncos the following week in the playoffs.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_f...layoff_chances

                  Losing a game on purpose? No way....ARREST THEM!!!!
                  Last edited by Since86; 07-11-2011, 09:57 AM.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                    I too just finished the book. It was a really fast read. It was incredibly interesting.

                    It was written from a guy who admits readily that he made life mistakes and got himself screwed up, lost his marriage, his kids, his career, his reputation. He names the names of people he thinks are responsible, and he defends those that weren't. Some were his friends, and now some no longer talk to him because of what he did.

                    I thought as far as the NBA topic was concerned, he was telling the truth - or at least his version of the truth as far as he remembered it. Sometimes I wondered if he knew more about a couple of people, or he was protecting a couple people, but generally the stories seemed to have a high level of veracity. He names the names of refs and the vendettas that they have against certain players and how he gambled based on refs' personal habits. He explains how Dick Bavetta loves close games and was very much a yes-man for the league in calling big games. In this way, he believes Bavetta affected outcomes - perhaps not deliberately, but subtly. That, to me, makes much more sense than some back office conspiracy theory.

                    The only two times I thought he was lying or holding back was when he mentions a lady "friend" that he was accused of having an affair with. He claims they didn't. His treatment of the situation in the book implies he did. The other involves the distinction he makes between "fixing" games and just using personal insights to bet. I think he did both, but he was very personally affected by his dad's view of him and his kids' views of him, and they seemed to be more "ok" with him if he didn't "fix" games. So I think he wrote the book to apologize to them and argue he didn't. I think he probably did. The distinction, though, doesn't make the rest of the stories false.

                    His chapter on how to fix the NBA and the reffing problems is very interesting. Some of the ideas are ones floated on here regularly.

                    Finally - this book helped explain to me how and why some of the mid-90s Pacers/Knicks games seemed to be reffed in such a manipulative way. He didn't name those series directly, but if there was referee manipulation involved, then those games make sense to me. And I really believe that a couple of times Reggie was able to beat the Knicks AND the refs. I always had believed it, having watched the games and feeling like some games were being subtly massaged toward one outcome or another. Donaghy admits that this type of thing happens all the time.

                    The stunning thing to me in the book was that he learned, through his involvement in the underworld, that at least 2 refs in the 90s were on payrolls of gambling bosses, but he didn't know who - and that was before he got heavily involved himself.

                    So you had an NBA scheme that instructed refs to "focus" on certain things about a specific team in the pre-game meeting (for example hypothetically, watch the shuffling of feet by Reggie, watch the illegal screens by Dale, etc.), then you had refs with certain preferences (Dick Bavetta's preference for close games, which may explain the phantom 4-point play by Larry Johnson), and refs with certain dislike of players, along with a few refs who are blatantly on the take. Shake it up, add it all together, and that explains the reffing in the NBA for the past 20 years. I believe every word of THAT.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                      Originally posted by MTM View Post

                      So you had an NBA scheme that instructed refs to "focus" on certain things about a specific team in the pre-game meeting (for example hypothetically, watch the shuffling of feet by Reggie, watch the illegal screens by Dale, etc.), then you had refs with certain preferences (Dick Bavetta's preference for close games, which may explain the phantom 4-point play by Larry Johnson), and refs with certain dislike of players, along with a few refs who are blatantly on the take. Shake it up, add it all together, and that explains the reffing in the NBA for the past 20 years. I believe every word of THAT.

                      Sure Refs are asked to focus on certain things before a game that to me sounds like the right approach. if the prior playoff game the refs missed 4 traveling calls on patrick Ewing, sure it makes sense that the crew for the next game should be told to watch for Ewing traveling, maybe give him a warning the first time and then call it when he gains an advantage.

                      I don't understand how the 4-point play is a sign of anything, except the ref made a completely horrible call and that ref Jess Kersey lost a ton of $$ as a result of that one call.

                      Sure refs are people and sure they have personal biases against certain players, especially if they complain all the time.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                        To be fair, you also don't think Tim Donaghy is a sign of anything.

                        Unless David Stern himself comes out and admits something, you're not going to believe it. We already know that.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                          Originally posted by MTM View Post
                          I thought as far as the NBA topic was concerned, he was telling the truth - or at least his version of the truth as far as he remembered it. Sometimes I wondered if he knew more about a couple of people, or he was protecting a couple people, but generally the stories seemed to have a high level of veracity. He names the names of refs and the vendettas that they have against certain players and how he gambled based on refs' personal habits. He explains how Dick Bavetta loves close games and was very much a yes-man for the league in calling big games. In this way, he believes Bavetta affected outcomes - perhaps not deliberately, but subtly. That, to me, makes much more sense than some back office conspiracy theory.
                          I did not get the feeling the Bavetta affecting the outcomes was not so deliberate. In fact didn't he even qoute him saying things like, "San Antonio needs this win, that's why they have me working it." Then when given the polygraph test and asked if this type of thing was true, he passed.
                          "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


                          • #73
                            Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Like horseracing? Yes, it is illegal to "fix" a horse race by giving a horse dope. No, it's not illegal because it was "unfair," but rather it's illegal because it's abusing the horse.

                            Do boxers get arrested for taking a dive? No.
                            Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that isn't the institution manipulating the outcome. That is the individual.

                            The colts deciding the lose the game... wasn't the NFL telling them not to win. The colts had it locked up already.

                            If the NFL came to the Colts organization and said, "hey we want to get teh Broncos in the playoffs, don't win", don't you think that might be a bit more of a problem?

                            The gambling community knew the Colts situation and realized that they would probably rest starters, etc..
                            "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


                            • #74
                              Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                              Sure Refs are asked to focus on certain things before a game that to me sounds like the right approach. if the prior playoff game the refs missed 4 traveling calls on patrick Ewing, sure it makes sense that the crew for the next game should be told to watch for Ewing traveling, maybe give him a warning the first time and then call it when he gains an advantage.

                              I don't understand how the 4-point play is a sign of anything, except the ref made a completely horrible call and that ref Jess Kersey lost a ton of $$ as a result of that one call.

                              Sure refs are people and sure they have personal biases against certain players, especially if they complain all the time.
                              Have you read the book?
                              "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


                              • #75
                                Re: Personal Foul: The Donaghy Book

                                Originally posted by rock747 View Post
                                Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that isn't the institution manipulating the outcome. That is the individual.

                                The colts deciding the lose the game... wasn't the NFL telling them not to win. The colts had it locked up already.

                                If the NFL came to the Colts organization and said, "hey we want to get teh Broncos in the playoffs, don't win", don't you think that might be a bit more of a problem?

                                The gambling community knew the Colts situation and realized that they would probably rest starters, etc..
                                Uh....wrestling?

                                And why would it be a problem? What law(s) would be broken?

                                The NFL, or whoever, can fix as many games as they want too. It wouldn't violate anyone's right, it wouldn't cheat anyone. It doesn't harm anyone in any way, what so ever.

                                Would it be a bad idea for a league to fix games? Most certainly. We like the idea that anything can happen. Popularity would plummet, yes.

                                But none of that leads to any legal or civil issues.

                                Geesh, just take a look at the BCS. Certain teams start out way ahead of the competition just because they're in a certain conference, and isn't based on anything other than the idea that major conferences should be better.

                                And we're talking about the difference between losing a couple hundred thousand dollars to go to a bowl game and profiting a couple of million dollars.

                                Boise State has lost out on how much money just because they don't play in a power conference, and we're going to argue whether or not it's illegal to play a game to a determined outcome because fans will feel cheated?

                                Come on now.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X