YouTube: Game 3 foul mix

[Bufalay]

Tim Duncan commits fouls?

lol that is tim duncan

 

[TJ]

So game 3 and 5 were fixed?? Sounds like this series should have been the suns 4-1

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

As of now there has been little to no evidence whether Donaghy fixed games, all they have for now on the guy is that he bet on games and leaked inside info.

 

[RingtheBell]

For some reason this really pissed me off... **** the NBA I am done.

 

[azirish]

As of now there has been little to no evidence whether Donaghy fixed games, all they have for now on the guy is that he bet on games and leaked inside info.

So all the crap was just incompetance? Jee, that's just so reassuring.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

So all the crap was just incompetance? Jee, that's just so reassuring.

Considering most of the poor calls during the series and throughout the NBA in general were not Donaghy's, then yes that is the most logical explanation. Officiating has been awful and inconsistent since the NBA decided to start coddling Jordan, this is certainly not a new development.

 

[jbeecham]

If you had tens of thousands of dollars riding on something that you had a direct ability to control the outcome of to make sure you won, wouldn't you make sure you won? Especially if you're working for the mob that wants either a certain team to win or a certain point total and they may kill you or your family if they don't get it?

Also, don't rule out other refs being involved until this all plays out.

 

[SunsFanVegas]

This guy Donaghy sounds like such a schmuck that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he implicates others just for spite, or to try and save his own arse for a better deal. My gut still tells me that he is not the only one. It's just too apparent in Game 3 where the other two officials let calls go and not call them on the Spurs when it was so obvious they fouled.

You can be sure that Stern will try and spin this and we probably will never know the 'actual' truth.

 

[azirish]

This guy Donaghy sounds like such a schmuck that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he implicates others just for spite, or to try and save his own arse for a better deal. My gut still tells me that he is not the only one. It's just too apparent in Game 3 where the other two officials let calls go and not call them on the Spurs when it was so obvious they fouled.

You can be sure that Stern will try and spin this and we probably will never know the 'actual' truth.

One interesting aspect of Donaghy's personality is that he was just as hated by other refs as by the coaches and players. Ordinarily the officials stick to their "code of silence", but his alienation may make it easier for him to name names. It's not like he's calling out his friends because he doesn't have any.

 

[sunsfn]

As of now there has been little to no evidence whether Donaghy fixed games, all they have for now on the guy is that he bet on games and leaked inside info.

Mao,
I have a bridge for sale that I would like to sell you.
It has been reduced and is a real bargain, you can contact me through this forum.

sunsfn

 

[azirish]

Mao's thesis is that all that was being bet on was the "over-under" and not the outcome. What is the basis of this claim?

I keep thinking of Nixon's defenders during Watergate: "The President wouldn't do that, so the President must not have done that".

Let's look at a hypothetical. Assume you are a bookie who has the Spurs and have given points. How do you ensure the Spurs are not upset? Taking out Amare in the first quarter is a good start, even if it takes calling a foul on incidental contact and so quickly D'Antoni did not have time to get Amare off the court.

Unlike over-under that can monitored by looking at the last five minutes, deciding the outcome of the game can be done very early by the way the calls are made.

How do we know he did NOT do that? All Mao can offer is the claim that he just wouldn't.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Actually George, I can offer that in sports betting past when there is a fix involved it is rarely in a game of such magnitude that will draw attention as well as in match fixing the outcome of the game is almost never determined. All you and the rest of the lynch mob are doing is speculating, I'm basing my theory on a historical context of sports gambling.

The first time one of the conspiracy theorists offer up some proof that Game 5 was fixed for the Spurs to win, I'll back off my claim. Until then, I'll go on the evidence (history of sports gambling, opinions of gamblers/bookmakers that have stated it's highly unlikely Donaghy determined W' and L's, leaked info on case that suggests Donaghy only used inside info and gambled) that's currently out there while you guys use a severely biased 2 minute highlight reel and homerism.

 

[azirish]

Actually George, I can offer that in sports betting past when there is a fix involved it is rarely in a game of such magnitude that will draw attention as well as in match fixing the outcome of the game is almost never determined. All you and the rest of the lynch mob are doing is speculating, I'm basing my theory on a historical context of sports gambling.

In other words, you have no more basis for your claim than our speculation.

Let me put it another way. Short of a flat out confession (which he is unlikely to admit to even if he's guilty), is there any other kind of evidence that would satisfy you?

 

[nowagimp]

Gamblers, reporters, David Stern, have all come out and said it is very unlikely that Donaghy affected the outcome of game but rather used his inside info as a referee to make bets for himself and others. Professional fixers have also stated it's nearly impossible to change the outcome of a game without getting attention.

First, people who make their living on the NBA will say whatever doesnt "bite the hand that feeds". They are hardly unbiased spectators without an interest here. David Stern would say poop was a cupcake and eat it if it furthered his interest, and those of the NBA. After all he has defended the officiating relentlessly, in spite of it being historically horrible.

Second, there is a difference between manipulating the outcome as desired, or just changing it unintentionally when trying to cover the over/under. One bogus foul called on amare(or KT) for the purposes of covering the over under, WILL change the game, very possibly the result. Statistically, you would be very hard pused to use it to determine manipulation, but that doesnt mean it didnt change the outcome. Well there were at least 2 bogus calls on amare and Duncan and bowen got away with murder w/out calls.

Its funny how this event has brought about acceptance in some individuals. Their faith is so high in the NBA that it was a random incident that even mob involvement doesnt set off alarms as to whether it is more widespread or anything other than an harmless manipulation(to the outcome). Wow, its almost like the church of the NBA, can do no wrong, scary! Its all on tape, the non call hacks with loss of possession and refs staring at the play, right at it. Watergate would have been a harmless prank to some of you guys.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

In other words, you have no more basis for your claim than our speculation.

The opinion of gamblers and bookmakers that a fix determining wins and losses is essentially impossible in professional televised sports is more than speculation. Leaked info from the case that says Donaghy wasn't being investigated for fixing games but rather leaking insider information and gambling is more than speculation. The fact that the fix that you and the rest of the myopians suggest took place has not occurred in such a high profile sports event in this country since the 1919 World Series is more than speculation.

All you have is a two minute highlight video of bad calls in slow-motion (a similar video of poor calls can be made for every game in NBA history) that occurred over the course of a 48 minutes game. When they tie Donaghy to fixing games then perhaps you might have a point, but considering he has not even been accused of such by anyone other than desk jockeys and sports radio hacks then you have no leg to stand on other than homerism.

 

[azirish]

So gamblers do not admit to fixing games. That is what makes you think that gamlers to not fix games?

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

And the Watergate comparison is stupid at best. There was evidence that members of Nixon and his staff carried out illegal activities. So far ZERO evidence has been presented that Donaghy fixed Game 5 nor is there any to suggest David Stern was involved in some cover up to get the Spurs an NBA Championship. Big difference although I fully don't expect George to see it.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

So gamblers do not admit to fixing games. That is what makes you think that gamlers to not fix games?

Reading comprehension.

Gamblers do admit games get fixed both in the present and the past, they just say it's nearly impossible to pull off should the fix determine wins and losses and if said game was a high profile event.

 

[Mulli]

It seems that some might be making a distinction between fixing games and manipulating a point spread. To me, whether or not the ref is meaning to fix a game, manipulating a point spread can end up "fixing" the outcome of a game.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

It seems that some might be making a distinction between fixing games and manipulating a point spread. To me, whether or not the ref is meaning to fix a game, manipulating a point spread can end up "fixing" the outcome of a game.

 

[nowagimp]

And the Watergate comparison is stupid at best. There was evidence that members of Nixon and his staff carried out illegal activities. So far ZERO evidence has been presented that Donaghy fixed Game 5 nor is there any to suggest David Stern was involved in some cover up to get the Spurs an NBA Championship. Big difference although I fully don't expect George to see it.

reading comprehension appears to be more widespread a problem. Effecting the outcome unintentionally is not a manipulation, but the effect is the same, a loss.

With no evidence, no disclosure of what is already known by the FBI, you are ready to make sweeping conslusions as the "minimal nature" of the effects. The church of the NBA is ALIVE!

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

reading comprehension appears to be more widespread a problem. Effecting the outcome unintentionally is not a manipulation, but the effect is the same, a loss.

With no evidence, no disclosure of what is already known by the FBI, you are ready to make sweeping conslusions as the "minimal nature" of the effects. The church of the NBA is ALIVE!

You really want to be a hypocrite and blast me over making sweeping accusations? You're the one saying he fixed Game 5 when nobody except a fanatical minority is suggesting such and when zero evidence has been provided by the FBI investigation to support such a theory.

Me - basing my opinion the lack of evidence discovered by an FBI investigation

You, George, etc - basing your opinion on youtube video and fanaticism

 

[SunsFanVegas]

I heard an interview that ESPN had with Charles Barkley on this subject yesterday on the local LV ESPN affiliate station here and Barkely said "that anyone who thinks that one official can't control the outcome of a game is just plain stupid." This is coming from an ex NBA player AND a gambler. He didn't admit that he thought it was more than one official, but anyone who heard the interview could read between the lines.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

Ive been waiting for barkley to spout off. I can think of no one more perfect than a loudmouth ex-nba gambling addict to comment on this perfect storm of news for him.

 

[mjb21aztd]

what a bunch of bs calls in game 3 especially when diaw didnt even touch manu and he got called and then when Amare went to the hole and got slapped around by duncan. No wonder Amare got in foul trouble when they have a ref who is trying his best to fix games I will still defintally watch the suns because i'm a huge fan but I will no longer support the nba in a lot of areas.... Watching that crap on youtube makes me real sick