Donaghy Confirms Anti-Mark Cuban Bias, incl. 2006 Finals - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

LonghornDub · 12-10-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Donaghy confirms anti-Cuban bias

December, 10, 2009

By Tim MacMahon

Ex-con/ex-referee Tim Donaghy confirmed what folks in Dallas have long suspected: NBA executives and officials are biased against Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

Donaghy, who made an appearance on ESPN 103.3’s Galloway and Co. to promote his book “Personal Foul,” said that bias cost the Mavericks games and played a significant role in their collapse after taking a 2-0 lead in the 2006 Finals.

“I think there was numerous games,” Donaghy said. “Obviously Mark was very outspoken in regard to the referees. Referees have personal vendettas that they take out on certain players, coaches and owners. Mark was certainly one of those people.”

Donaghy claimed that Danny Crawford bragged that the Mavericks rarely won playoff games that he officiated, information Donaghy used to place bets against the Mavs. The Mavs have lost 15 of their last 16 playoffs game that Crawford worked.

If Donaghy can be believed, there were two major officiating factors in the controversial Finals collapse that was fueled by Dwyane Wade free throws. He said referees are trained to favor teams that are down in playoff series. And then there’s the anti-Cuban bias.

“It had been told to me behind the scenes that they were actually happy in the NBA office when Dallas was knocked out from the playoffs,” Donaghy said, “because it was less complaints from Mark, it was less e-mails from Mark and it was less work that they had to do.”

Of course, Cuban surely fired off a few e-mails after the Finals.

Cuban’s e-mail response to Donaghy’s comments on Thursday: "My position hasn't changed. But I've already paid for stating it, so I'm not going to repeat it."

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/maver...nti-cuban-bias

I was never one much for conspiracy theories at the time, and I suppose these could just be the ramblings of a guy who wants his 15 minutes...but where there's smoke, there's fire.

DevinHarriswillstart · 12-10-2009, 02:43 PM

The Mavs have lost 15 of their last 16 playoffs game that Crawford worked.

^This is the most convincing part of the article.

iella · 12-10-2009, 02:45 PM

Whether truth or fiction, the NBA is turning into a soap opera (complete with backstabbing, lying, and hidden agendas), and goodness knows there are already enough of those on TV.

LonghornDub · 12-10-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

The Mavs have lost 15 of their last 16 playoffs game that Crawford worked.

^This is the most convincing part of the article.

Yeah, there certainly comes a point when a number like that is no longer mere coincidence.

Underdog · 12-10-2009, 02:55 PM

Nothing to see here, folks...

Dirkadirkastan · 12-10-2009, 03:04 PM

This doesn't make me feel any better...

rabbitproof · 12-10-2009, 03:06 PM

Who here is really, genuinely blown out of their socks shocked?

jthig32 · 12-10-2009, 03:19 PM

For what it's worth, TrueHoop has conducted a pretty systematic dismantling of most of this guy's claims as it pertains to gambling indicators that he used to make money betting on NBA games.

For instance he claims in his book that Bavetta likes to keep games close so whenever Bavetta worked a game with a double digit underdog he would always bet the underdog to cover.

Well TrueHoop did some research and contacted some people with complex NBA historical databases (including Wayne Winston, the former Mavs stats guy) and they soundly debunked it. Like you would have lost serious money betting all the double digit underdogs in games worked by Bavetta during the time period in question.

They did this for several of his claims. It was pretty interesting reading.

I, personally, have never believed in a full conspiracy. I think individual refs have agendas and deficiencies. I do believe the NBA tracks those kinds of things and uses them to their advantage to subtly massage their games. But I don't think, generally speaking, the refs have the kind of effect on outcomes that people would like to think.

LonghornDub · 12-10-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

I, personally, have never believed in a full conspiracy. I think individual refs have agendas and deficiencies. I do believe the NBA tracks those kinds of things and uses them to their advantage to subtly massage their games. But I don't think, generally speaking, the refs have the kind of effect on outcomes that people would like to think.

I agree with the first part of this. That's usually where I've fallen on this issue. I don't think the NBA dictates outcomes (i.e., I don't believe in some large conspiracy), but I do think individual refs have their own biases that greatly affect how they ref.

I will have to disagree with your last sentence, though, about the refs not affecting outcomes as much as people think.

fluid.forty.one · 12-10-2009, 03:23 PM

I feel so bad for Dirk. He deserved that NBA championship.

fluid.forty.one · 12-10-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't think, generally speaking, the refs have the kind of effect on outcomes that people would like to think.

When Wade went to the foul line for the phantom calls, after Dirk's potential game winners, that effected the outcome of the games.

Underdog · 12-10-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

The Mavs have lost 15 of their last 16 playoffs game that Crawford worked.

When something (anything at all) happens 15 out of 16 times, it's pretty hard to dismiss it as a coincidence...

jthig32 · 12-10-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

When Wade went to the foul line for the phantom calls, after Dirk's potential game winners, that effected the outcome of the games.

Well, yeah, I didn't say it never happens. I'm saying it doesn't happen as often or as regularly as people think. And that is backed up by the data, in the articles I referenced.

Underdog · 12-10-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well, yeah, I didn't say it never happens. I'm saying it doesn't happen as often or as regularly as people think.

Nope, just often enough to screw the Mavs out of a ring...

(not backed by any data or references, just my own eyes and a state-of-the-art bullsh!t detector...)

LonghornDub · 12-10-2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

Yeah, there certainly comes a point when a number like that is no longer mere coincidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

When something (anything at all) happens 15 out of 16 times, it's pretty hard to dismiss it as a coincidence...

Underdog · 12-10-2009, 03:52 PM

Sorry, L-Dub - it's been so long since you've posted anything of value that I just tend to skim over your words...

Flacolaco · 12-10-2009, 04:06 PM

In other news, what does everyone think about letting Steve Nash go?

Seriously, can't we just let this die...

mavsfan1000 · 12-10-2009, 04:23 PM

There will always be an asterisk next to the name of the Heat in that year. They didn't deserve that series. The refs gave it to them and D-Whistle.

SMC0007 · 12-10-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

In other news, what does everyone think about letting Steve Nash go?

Seriously, can't we just let this die...

IDK because the Harris - Kidd trade has been on my mind a lot lately.

bobatundi · 12-10-2009, 04:33 PM

Unlike Hollinger's "statistics," which are mostly fabrications of his own agenda, there's little probability that the Mavs' 1-15 playoff record with Crawford could be random chance, especially when you consider they're a roughly .500 playoff team over time. I can't find the exact record for the period in which Crawford has been an official, but that kind of bias just reeks. I was geniunely hoping the NBA and the refs didn't work out a deal, so that we could start over from scratch with a new crop of referees; they might not be as experienced, but they also wouldn't have any existing biases.

Usually Lurkin · 12-10-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobatundi

Unlike Hollinger's "statistics," which are mostly fabrications of his own agenda, there's little probability that the Mavs' 1-15 playoff record with Crawford could be random chance, especially when you consider they're a roughly .500 playoff team over time. .

I wonder how many single-team / single-ref, 16 game sets there are in the history of the playoffs.

CadBane · 12-10-2009, 04:47 PM

Danny Crawford was also the ref who actually blew the whistle on a number of those very very very crucial and very phantom fouls in the Finals.

Usually Lurkin · 12-10-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthig32

But I don't think, generally speaking, the refs have the kind of effect on outcomes that people would like to think.

a couple people have noted this already, but once in the playoffs should be enough. And to determine the championship? Shouldn't that be a giant scandal over which people get fired and banned from the NBA?

dalmations202 · 12-10-2009, 05:11 PM

With my own eyes it looked like a duck.
I heard it quack like a duck.

Now someone involved tells me "IT WAS A DUCK".......

well DUH!!!!

And all the anti-Duck PETA people who are profiting from it can tell me it wasn't a DUCK all they want to. I'm not a sheeple. You have to make your own mind up though.

LonghornDub · 12-10-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underdog

Sorry, L-Dub - it's been so long since you've posted anything of value that I just tend to skim over your words...

Ohhhhh no you didn't.

mavErika · 12-11-2009, 03:26 AM

I actually heard the Galloway interview with Donaghy (don't blame me, I'm just desperate for Mavs-related audio for my podcast

), but I wouldn't advise anybody to do so. It felt like Donaghy was willing to apply his general accusations on the Dallas-case (without saying much substantial), as a direct return to the favor Galloway did him in speaking with him and calling on gac-listeners at least five times to buy his book. One of the more interesting statements was that he(for things he explained, like the refs' dislike of Cuban)made Dallas one focal point of his bets.
I certainly did not read his book, but I thought he didn't say much about on which games he had betted as of yet, or did I miss that?

I could imagine some of these accusations to be true and I'd like to believe that guy, but often times he's not very convincing and additionally, some of his claims are proved to be incorrect. Most of the time that guy sounds like he's holding a lot of stuff back, and there could be different reasons for that(e.g. he don't wants to expose everything written in the book; he's lying; legal implications; agreements; ...), but these kind of things make it even harder to take anything he says for granted.

92bDad · 12-11-2009, 10:04 AM

Sounds like he could be the Jose Canseco (SP?) of the NBA...a complete laughing stock and nearly everyone dismiss his words initially, but in reality...there is truth to the claims.

We all saw it in baseball, but we all batted a blind eye to the reality...Jose puts out his book, and before you know it...the Steroids are fully exposed. Now I don't know if the problem got fixed, or if they found a better way to hide and mask what they do...but for all of those laughing at him...he was correct in exposing the reality of baseball.

Now we flip the NBA, and we all see the corruption, the manipulation and the flat out influence on who wins in the league. Yet, there are many who continue to laugh at the "Conspiracy"...knowing it's so crazy that nobody will believe it ever actually happens...yet we flip back to the Mavs-Heat series, and no matter how many different ways we look at that series, we see the mass amount of phantom calls.

No doubt, this Tim guy has his own issues and he got caught up in the moment, but there is some serious validity to what he claims...unfortunately, you can't give this a test that comes out positive or negative...most likely this will all get swept under the Stern rug...but it's there, it's further validated the reality that so many fans have regarding the NBA.

I suppose we either embrace and remain fans of the WWE of organized Team sports, or we stop and move on to other sports. Of course there are more options...such as hope the NBA will change, while fans can still enjoy the play and athleticism of these professionals.

For me I hope to someday see some positive change in this league, and that the Stern mob clan will be removed and that we can see the league restored to fair competition rather than a rigged league.

I enjoy the games at home...but I refuse to pay for a single game until this league has changed and is no longer corrupt...until then, it's Mavs in HD and message board banter.

Let's all enjoy some Duck for Christmas!!!

LSMF · 12-11-2009, 12:39 PM

Did you guys hear this?!
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/player?id=4729343 The whole interview with Galloway and Tim Donaghy Confirms everything I've thought for years...

aquaadverse · 12-11-2009, 08:33 PM

This is as sad as watching Jerry Mathers continuing to be the Beaver.

LSMF · 12-12-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

This is as sad as watching Jerry Mathers continuing to be the Beaver.

Lol look who it is...It seems no matter what Heat fans will defend their stolen championship. How do you defend yourself now?

GermanDunk · 12-12-2009, 02:51 PM

This isn´t just embarrassing, this is bankruptcy.

Kidd Karma · 12-12-2009, 07:13 PM

Looking at the glass half full, Stern may reverse course, crop all this non sense and actually may encourage the refs to lean towards guys like Cuban just to get scrutiny off his back.

antoinewalker · 12-12-2009, 11:17 PM

damn.

Thomas86 · 12-13-2009, 09:27 AM

Ok so.......

1.Dallas didn't "choke" in the Finals

2.Josh Howard didn't call that "time out" even Joey Crawford said Josh didn't.

3.Avery was not out coach in the series

4.Wade and the Heat got help from the refs

5.Dallas are the real 2006 NBA Champs

aquaadverse · 12-14-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSMF

Lol look who it is...It seems no matter what Heat fans will defend their stolen championship. How do you defend yourself now?

I wasn't aware I have to defend anything. You want to do a few chin ups on Donaghy's bag feel free. If it makes you feel better, we don't even discuss it much.

We are excited for the future. Plus the Dolphins are 2 for December.

Weren't you banned?

LonghornDub · 12-14-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I wasn't aware I have to defend anything.

You post about once a week and you felt the need to post in this particular thread. I'd say you felt the need to defend something.

But what do I know.

LSMF · 12-14-2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

I wasn't aware I have to defend anything. You want to do a few chin ups on Donaghy's bag feel free. If it makes you feel better, we don't even discuss it much.

We are excited for the future. Plus the Dolphins are 2 for December.

Weren't you banned?

In other words you CAN'T defend your championship. You lose, now get the F outta here, douchebag. Who are the people who rep this Miami Cheat troll anyway?

MavsX · 12-15-2009, 01:10 PM

must kill Danny Crawford

Murphy3 · 12-15-2009, 01:16 PM

I suppose the only way they need to defend their championship is by pointing at the trophy... Obviously, the officiating was horrendous. However, in the end, the title is theirs regardless of how badly the Mavs were screwed by officiating. The record books don't care about that.

Usually Lurkin · 12-15-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I suppose the only way they need to defend their championship is by pointing at the trophy... Obviously, the officiating was horrendous. However, in the end, the title is theirs regardless of how badly the Mavs were screwed by officiating. The record books don't care about that.

yeah, but maybe in 100 years, there will be a special wikipedia page for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal