Donaghy Admits to 2 Refs Fixing a Playoff Series

[twistaeffect2004]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3436401

It's also Breaking News on ESPNews

This could be damning to the league. How long was this happening? How frequent?

[SlimBig]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...stle_on_n.html

By JOHN MARZULLI

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, June 10th 2008, 4:10 PM

Tim Donaghy, who pleaded guilty to charges of betting on games he officiated, is now airing NBA's dirty laundry.
Ex-NBA referee Tim Donaghy told the feds two refs fixed the outcome of one playoff series - and that officials were told not to eject star players from games for fear of hurting ticket sales.

The bombshell allegations are contained in a court document filed Tuesday by Donaghy's lawyer. It describes the “inner workings" of the NBA in which top league executives used referees to manipulate games.

Donaghy, who pleaded guilty in Brooklyn Federal Court to charges of betting on games he officiated, told FBI agents “league officials would tell referees that they should withhold calling technical fouls on certain star players because doing so hurt ticket sales and television ratings," the document said.

Donaghy claims he was told that two refs who were “company men” acting in the interest of the NBA conspired to extend a playoff series in 2002 to a seventh game.

The referees allegedly ignored flagrant fouls committed by the team that needed to win. They also reportedly called "made-up fouls" against the other team which led to the ejection of two of their players. The team favored by the refs won that night and the next game to win the series.

The document does not name the teams. The Nets were in that playoff series, losing the championship finals to the Los Angeles Lakers.

Donaghy also claimed a supervising referee told refs that an unidentified NBA executive did not want them to call technical fouls on star players or boot them from the game.

Donaghy told feds the league reprimanded a referee who disobeyed that edict in January 2000 and ejected an unnamed star player from a game in the first quarter.

Lawyer John Lauro filed the four-page letter to Federal Judge Carol Amon because none of the information was included in the government’s letter to the judge seeking leniency for Donaghy when he is sentenced next month.

Lauro has gone to war against Brooklyn federal prosecutors for offering plea deals to Donaghy's betting accomplices that give them less time than the disgraced ref, despite his extensive cooperation.

Donaghy claims referees have accepted autographs, free merchandise and meals from team coaches and managers. He told probers one referee used a team's practice facility to exercise and another played tennis with an NBA coach.

"These activities were against NBA rules, indeed, such inappropriate relationships could influence the outcome of games," Lauro wrote.

Lauro said he withheld the names of the teams, referees and league officials because the feds may still investigate the allegations.

[SlimBig]

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/break...rney_says.html

By Frank Fitzpatrick

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Tim Donaghy's lawyer said today that the letter the government filed last week outlining his client's cooperation failed to note details of what Donaghy told prosecutors about questionable behavior by other NBA referees.

Attorney John Lauro, seeking to reduce the mandatory sentence Donaghy faces when sentenced on July 14, submitted the new information in a supplemental letter to U.S. District Court Judge Carol Amon.

Lauro's letter provided a list of alleged "improper interactions and relationships" between referees and league players, coaches and officials, though none are identified. He said some NBA referees socialized with, sought autographs from and played tennis with players, coaches and executives, all in violation of league policies.

According to Lauro, Donaghy also told the FBI about colleagues who flaunted another NBA guidelines by wagering in casinos and on other sporting events.

An NBA spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.

Donaghy offered the information, Lauro said, in a Sept. 6, 2007, meeting with FBI officials in Tampa and in a 2008 report that he did at the government's request.

The letter indicated that Donaghy had heard from another referee that a third official had promised a general manager/friend that his calls would go against the opponents of that GM's team in a 2004 game.

That referee, Donaghy told the FBI, called 25 fouls on that opposing team, "far fewer" than on the GM's club.

According to Lauro, Donaghy also informed investigators that NBA executives advised referees not to call technical fouls on or eject star players, fearing that would damage the league's image.

Donaghy, Lauro added, also pointed out flaws with the NBA's observer system, in which league officials rate a referee's performance anonymously from the stands.

He said officials often knew when they were being observed and by whom, citing one instance when an observer approached the referees before a game and asked them to buy a copy of his new book.

The disgraced referee was fired last year after 13 seasons when he admitted providing inside information to friends who bet on NBA games, including some game that Donaghy worked. He faces up to 25 years in prison on gambling and wire-fraud charges.

Donaghy also suggested NBA executives manipulated games by urging referees to watch certain players more closely, listing an example from the 2005 playoffs.

After complaints about a player from one team's officials, he said, the league instructed the referees to crack down on that player.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Mavs 116 Rockets 76

Yeah, tell us who the better team was, Rocket fans.

I have Game 3 on DVD, so I'll be sure to watch that soon.

[Underdog]

Insane Theories - 1

Regular Theories - 1,000,000,000

[Flacolaco]

Donaghy also alleges that team executives conspired with the league to prevent star players from being called for too many fouls or being ejected. He claimed that league officials told referees that doing so would "hurt ticket sales and television ratings."

ummm

[nikeball]

I didn't see "the whistle" at first

[Underdog]

[MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs]

Yeah all us conspiracy theorists are just insane right? The NBA couldn't be rigged we didn't really get screwed on the NBA Finals against the Heat.


People need to start trusting what their eyes see and not thinking themselves into denial.

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33262

[MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs]

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33262

[GuerillaBlack]

Looks like Van Gundy was right in saying that an official came up to him and told him the refs were given direction to call Yao more tightly. I think that part of the allegations are TRUE. Lakers-Kings game 6 was probably the worst officiated game of all time.

[MavsWiLLHaVeRinGs]

Don't let Kobe having the most regular season technicals this year persuade you. I would say that was done on purpose to make it appear as if the league doesn't do what they know they're guilty of. Also it means nothing for him to have the most technicals anyway in the regular season I'll be impressed when he's ejected from an NBA Finals game (wont happen)

[rabbitproof]

Entertaining, aint it?

[GermanDunk]

But, hey. That´s unfair !

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

But, hey. That´s unfair !

Greatest post in the history of writen language.

Some much in those four words!!!!

[wmbwinn]

do you think the 2005 allegation was the Dallas/Heat championship?? Dallas wins the first two, the officials start calling Dampier more often for the illegal screen, Heat win?

[birdsanctuary]

No because that happened in the 2006 season... If memory serves me correctly it was the Mavs who came back in 05 to beat the Rockets in a best of 7 series?

Suffering is often complemented with a glass of irony on the rocks...

Mavs fans raise your glass; To Commissioner Stern.... Cheers!

[wmbwinn]

Was there a Rockets player getting away with questionable picks/screens that started getting busted starting in game 3?

As far as naming years, then I am to assume that the championship year is titled based on the calendar year in which the playoffs series was played rather than the year the season started? IE, the 2006 year started in 2005 and finished in 2006?

So, this year is the 2008 championship series (named for this year rather than the year the season started which was 2007)?

You are probably right. I just never thought about it.

I can see at the top of this web page that it is titled 2008 Dallas.Mavs.com so you must be correct.

So, who was the Rocket who had the refs turn on him? Yao?

[wmbwinn]

It adds a whole new dimension to history. It is really very sad for the sport and the valiant cheering fan.

And, it adds sudden validity to the many years of Mark Cuban yelling about the refs. It adds instant validity to the statistical work Mark did to show a bias. You can also find an article showing the Mavs got screwed in the 2006 Heat series on the web page 82games.com
That article went into detailed statistical analysis to suggest that the Mavs got screwed.

Now, suddenly, these conspiracy theories are going to live forever...

Put an asterisk on Bond's homerun record.
Put an asterisk next to the Heat's trophy.
Put an asterisk next to the statement that TMac never got out of the first round...

very sad day

[GuerillaBlack]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Was there a Rockets player getting away with questionable picks/screens that started getting busted starting in game 3?

As far as naming years, then I am to assume that the championship year is titled based on the calendar year in which the playoffs series was played rather than the year the season started? IE, the 2006 year started in 2005 and finished in 2006?

So, this year is the 2008 championship series (named for this year rather than the year the season started which was 2007)?

You are probably right. I just never thought about it.

I can see at the top of this web page that it is titled 2008 Dallas.Mavs.com so you must be correct.

So, who was the Rocket who had the refs turn on him? Yao?

What?

[eafdafea]

The 2005 series being discussed was the Rockets/Mavs series when Cuban complained to the league about Yao setting "illegal" screens and the referees were told to call Yao extremely tight.

The greatest part is, Jeff Van Gundy was told about this from an inside league official, made it public, and was fined the biggest fine in NBA history, $100,000.

I guess making correct accusations leads to hefty fines.

[wmbwinn]

Mark got hit with heavy fines as well for his blogs and statistics showing a referee bias and even showing a points differential based on which refs were calling a game...

Anyway, it looks like the issue was actually rigged rather than the refs just being pathetic...

[Underdog]

Can you believe a sport that has millions of dollars in bets waged every game is rigged???

Next thing you know, the government will start rigging elections!

[roadrunner]

I really hope this leads to something tangible, like a real investigation into what the league and Darth Stern is doing so that things will change for the better. As it is right now, I don't think any changes will be made.

I know I can't absolutely prove it, but I have been convinced over the years that there was alot more than incompetence going on with the officiating. I think the proverbial straw for me was the 2006 finals. I have since had a hard time watching the NBA without thinking that it is rigged. After that year, I stopped buying NBA league pass in protest and haven't re-upped since.

Maybe one day we will have our proof.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Can you believe a sport that has millions of dollars in bets waged every game is rigged???

Next thing you know, the government will start rigging elections!

Here's an interesting thought experiment for you (since I know you can handle it). To start with, I will tell you two things: 1) Yes, you are correct--and quite insightful, I might add--the NBA is indeed rigged. 2) The Lakers are laying 9.5 tonight, for Game Three.

Question: Which side do you bet on?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Here's an interesting thought experiment for you (since I know you can handle it). To start with, I will tell you two things: 1) Yes, you are correct--and quite insightful, I might add--the NBA is indeed rigged. 2) The Lakers are laying 9.5 tonight, for Game Three.

Question: Which side do you bet on?

I don't gamble...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I don't gamble...

I wasn't asking for your tip sheet. It's a thought experiment.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I wasn't asking for your tip sheet. It's a thought experiment.

Did I fail?

[roadrunner]

You better take the Lake show and give the 9.5...because we already know the league wants to extend the series out to make more money.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Did I fail?

Yes, miserably. You threw out the idea that huge sums of money are wagered on NBA games so it stands to reason that some corruption is taking place. You threw that out there as if it were some proof positive supporting your (paranoid) assumption that the game is rigged, and in doing so you failed to think it through.

Your assumption: Rig games, win money on bets. Easy money!

The rub: How are you going to get ahead of Vegas? Because if YOU know that the league wants to Lakers to win tonight (and if you are correct), then you can bet your ass that Vegas knows it, too. Maybe that's why you had a 9.5 point spread to deal with.

Such a sad state of affairs for the conspiracy theorists. They know exactly what it is going on, but they can't even profit from it.

[ty]

Pandora's Box just popped open...

[Underdog]

Here ya go, Chum:

Effect of gambling on games

Sports gambling expert R. J. Bell, president of sports betting information site Pregame.com, tracked every game Donaghy worked from 2003 to 2007. He discovered that during the two seasons investigated by the NBA, the teams involved scored more points than expected by the Las Vegas sports books 57 percent of the time. In the previous two seasons, this only happened 44 percent of the time. According to Bell, the odds of such a discrepancy are 1 in 1,000, and there was "a 99.9 percent chance that these results would not have happened without an outside factor." He also found 10 straight games in 2007 in which Donaghy worked the game that the point spread moved 1.5 points or more before the tip — an indication that big money had been wagered on the game. The big money won every time —another indication that "something (was) going on". However, Bell suggested that there was no way anyone who wasn't in on the fix could have known that something was amiss about Donaghy's actions during a game; he said it would have been another year at the earliest before anyone could have caught on.

Handicapper Brandon Lang told ESPN that it is fairly easy for a crooked sports official to fix a game, despite Stern's insistence that Donaghy was a "rogue official". According to Lang, an official can directly influence the outcome of a game 75 percent of the time if he has money on the game. For instance, Lang said that a crooked NBA referee can fix the total score by calling enough fouls to get both teams in the bonus. When a game is being fixed, Lang said, the officials should be the prime suspects because the players are making too much money to risk their future. Lang also believed a bookie connected to the mob turned Donaghy in to the FBI. On June 10th, 2008, it was confirmed that Donaghy was responsible for the awful officiating in the 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Sacramento Kings and the Los Angeles Lakers. In game 6 of that series, the Kings were called for a blistering 27 fouls in the fourth quarter while the Lakers for only 9. The Lakers went on to win game 6 and eventually the series in seven games. The game has been referred to as a fixed game but never confirmed until Donaghy admitted to investigators 6 years after. He says that the NBA wanted to the series to go to 7 games due to the fact that it would hurt ticket sales and tv ratings.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by ty

Pandora's Box just popped open...

I will take all the daemons, as long as Hope nestles to my ample teats!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Here ya go, Chum:

moted

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Here ya go, Chum:

Fair enough. Let's break this down...

Sports gambling expert R. J. Bell, president of sports betting information site Pregame.com, tracked every game Donaghy worked from 2003 to 2007. He discovered that during the two seasons investigated by the NBA, the teams involved scored more points than expected by the Las Vegas sports books 57 percent of the time. In the previous two seasons, this only happened 44 percent of the time. According to Bell, the odds of such a discrepancy are 1 in 1,000, and there was "a 99.9 percent chance that these results would not have happened without an outside factor."

Okay, so what he is saying here is that for the first two seasons they investigated, the teams posted an "under" total 44% of the time, and for the next two seasons they posted an "over" total 57% of the time.

He calls this one-in-a-thousand, and chalks it up to outside influence. This leads to a few questions:

1) You will, I'm sure, recognize that if you take the long run of the four years together, then Donaghy-refereed games resulted in almost an exactly even mix of "under" games and "over" games. This is exactly what you would expect.

So were there other influences at play besides the fact that Donaghy was behind the whistle? To answer this, we would at the very least need to see the same stats for the other NBA referees during the same time period.

We would also be smart to consider league-wide trends in over/unders (they certainly do exist), though it is true that we would already learn something about this if we compared all the other referees, as suggested above.

2) Why did Donaghy change his tactics?

If the 57% "overs" is remarkable, then the 44% "unders" is equally remarkable. If Donaghy was sitting on a cash cow, then why would he turn a complete 180?

3) It should follow from this, if you believe that Donaghy was gaining some huge advantage with his refereeing, that Donaghy was NOT sitting on some huge cash cow. And this meets with what we know. Winning 57% of the time is not enough to get largely ahead over the short term. How many games does an NBA ref call a year? Let's just say that it's a hundred, for argument's sake. And let's say that Donaghy bet the over in every one of those games (obviously that was his strategy, per the quoted article).

He wins 57 times and he loses 43 times. He pays the juice (10%) on his losses, so he is 53 up and 47.3 down, for a net of plus-5.7. In other words, every two bets nets him 5.7% of his stake, and he gets to make 50 of these pairs of bets. If he bet $10,000 every time out, he would be up $18,500 at the end of it.

Is that profit margin worth the job that he risked?

4) Can anyone explain how Donaghy was making money by influencing games at such an insignificant rate?

Hint: He wasn't. (Now, I'm not saying he wasn't trying. Obviously he was trying. But he wasn't.)

As a final point, I will suggest that if Donaghy had indeed conspired to influence games "under" for two years and then switch to "over", this still did not necessarily influence the outcomes of many of these games. NBA players and coaches are smart; they can figure out referee styles just like baseball teams can figure out umpire strike zones, and they can adjust accordingly.

He also found 10 straight games in 2007 in which Donaghy worked the game that the point spread moved 1.5 points or more before the tip — an indication that big money had been wagered on the game. The big money won every time —another indication that "something (was) going on". However, Bell suggested that there was no way anyone who wasn't in on the fix could have known that something was amiss about Donaghy's actions during a game; he said it would have been another year at the earliest before anyone could have caught on.

First of all, a movement of 1.5 points is not anything unusual for NBA games, so the suggestion that "big money had been wagered on the game" is suspect to say the least. It belies a misunderstanding of sports betting in general.

There are tons of NBA games, relative to NFL games (where the real betting action is). There are games every single night, and lines are generally posted late the night before the game. So there is comparatively little time for the line to "correct" itself. And when it comes to the NBA, "correcting" the line is a much more volatile thing, due to how scoring happens in the game. If an NFL line comes out at 3.5 and eventually moves to 2.5 over the course of the week, that is a VERY large change in the line relative to NBA terms. A great many NFL games are decided by 3 points, you see, because those relative points are very meaningful and they are also influenced heavily by the scoring conventions of the game. But for an NBA line to move from 8 to 6? That's nothing. That's a "for fun" jumper as the time expires. Shifts of this magnitude in an NBA line are generally meaningless and certainly not unusual.

And for that matter, they certainly do not necessarily indicate that "big money" has come down on one side or the other. With games going on every night, and so many bad teams out there that draw little interest, there are typically games on any given slate that attract scant bettor interest. The smaller the total volume bet on the game, the more the line will tend to move as bets come in.

Follow this with the guy's statement that Donaghy's actions indicate nothing unusual, and you can see how this is much ado about nothing.



This is a long way of saying that if you are an NBA referee, you shouldn't harbor dreams of getting rich by fixing games, because it just ain't gonna happen. And our boy Donaghy is proof positive of that.

[MavsX]

He also found 10 straight games in 2007 in which Donaghy worked the game that the point spread moved 1.5 points or more before the tip — an indication that big money had been wagered on the game. The big money won every time —another indication that "something (was) going on".

[MavsX]

He also found 10 straight games in 2007 in which Donaghy worked the game that the point spread moved 1.5 points or more before the tip — an indication that big money had been wagered on the game. The big money won every time —another indication that "something (was) going on".

[GermanDunk]

European soccer leagues have installed a system where bookmakers report abnormal high stakes - especially when underdog teams are involved. Bets are usually cancelled then. Does something similar exist in the United states ?

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by GuerillaBlack

Looks like Van Gundy was right in saying that an official came up to him and told him the refs were given direction to call Yao more tightly. I think that part of the allegations are TRUE. Lakers-Kings game 6 was probably the worst officiated game of all time.

Can you provide a torrent or download link ? I would be interested to take a look at the game.

[RonMexico]

Cuban can blow my Holy Roman candle.