# Donaghy scandal spreads to Foster



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381842,00.html



> The records show Donaghy placed 134 calls to referee Scott Foster — more than the 126 calls Donaghy made to his bookie — between October 2006 and April 2007, the period during which he has confessed to either betting on games or passing on game information to gamblers. The majority of the phone calls lasted no more than two minutes and occurred prior to and after games Donaghy officiated and on which he admits wagering.


Looks pretty convincing to me that Donaghy was not all alone... making a liar or buffoon out of David Stern.

iWatas


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

lol yeah gee the nba rigged under stern? never! the pau and kg trades were total legit and stern had nothing to do with them, they werent about finals ratings at all!!!! We all know that Kupcake and Ainge were gods of making big trades before these trades!


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Wow... the short quote didn't necessarily sway me... but that article did. Definitely looks like Foster was involved too... especially when he called his bookie a bunch always right after Foster. =)


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

this is obviously old news to federal authorities.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> lol yeah gee the nba rigged under stern? never! the pau and kg trades were total legit and stern had nothing to do with them, they werent about finals ratings at all!!!! We all know that Kupcake and Ainge were gods of making big trades before these trades!


I don't see how or why a ref (or two, or a dozen) having illegal ties to bookies would have anything to do with Stern "rigging" the NBA to have certain stars at certain locations...

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't see how or why a ref (or two, or a dozen) having illegal ties to bookies would have anything to do with Stern "rigging" the NBA to have certain stars at certain locations...
> 
> Ed O.


Oh comon Ed O! Get into the conspiracy spirit! :biggrin:

:azdaja:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Looks pretty convincing to me that Donaghy was not all alone... making a liar or buffoon out of David Stern.
> 
> iWatas


I think you are jumping to conclusions. There are other possible reasons Donaghy might call Foster repeatedly. Perhaps they were lovers.

barfo


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

barfo said:


> I think you are jumping to conclusions. There are other possible reasons Donaghy might call Foster repeatedly. Perhaps they were lovers.
> 
> barfo


Or perhaps he was calling him to place a wager on who could give the most T's!


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

The only good thing about all of this coming out is that now, maybe, there's a reasonable shot that games next season will see an improvement in officiating.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Will Stern lose his job or worse? Seems he set himself up on a very slippery slope by adamantly denying any such thing took place or was even being investigated.

Dan


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Considering Stern isn't the absolute head of the NBA merely and appointed person put in place by the owners to oversea the organization elements of the NBA and the Business related side of the league, I'm not sure he actually has a lot of power to truly sway things much as if he did he could actually be fired.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

dkap said:


> Will Stern lose his job or worse? Seems he set himself up on a very slippery slope by adamantly denying any such thing took place or was even being investigated.
> 
> Dan



It's time to put Stern under oath and find out exactly what communications he has had with certain officials. Because the refs are NBA employees, and because Stern so boldly declared the Donaghy case as the actions of a "rogue" ref, I for one would like a straight answer from Stern on whether or not he knew of any games being rigged.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Considering Stern isn't the absolute head of the NBA merely and appointed person put in place by the owners to oversea the organization elements of the NBA and the Business related side of the league, I'm not sure he actually has a lot of power to truly sway things much as if he did he could actually be fired.


Stern is the head of the NBA. An example? His various finings of Mark Cuban for criticizing the officials. The other owners didn't vote on those fines; Stern unilaterally took money away from the Mavericks for criticizing what appear to be officials who were on the take.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't think the owners would fire him unless the ship was *really* sinking. Otherwise it brings even more attention where they don't want it. Best to hope people believe Stern like the Iraqi Information Minister. The NBA is secure. There are no foreign troops in the NBA. God willing, no betting will ever occur on the NBA. We will soon witness another great victory over the evil liars. I can tell you when you believe me, felons are liars, everything is just fine. Fanastic. We give you want you want... we know... you know... what you want and I say right now to you... we give you just that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PapaG said:


> It's time to put Stern under oath and find out exactly what communications he has had with certain officials. Because the refs are NBA employees, and because Stern so boldly declared the Donaghy case as the actions of a "rogue" ref, I for one would like a straight answer from Stern on whether or not he knew of any games being rigged.


Under oath? Why? Under what authority?

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

PapaG said:


> Stern is the head of the NBA. An example? His various finings of Mark Cuban for criticizing the officials. The other owners didn't vote on those fines; Stern unilaterally took money away from the Mavericks for criticizing what appear to be officials who were on the take.


Yes that is true, it is his Job to do so. But he is not the head of the NBA, he is an employee of the NBA and answers to the Board of Governors, which essentially is the owners. He has the power to fine owners for crossing the line, but he is not untouchable. If he screws up bad enough he can and will be fired and replaced.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Under oath? Why? Under what authority?
> 
> Ed O.


The Spanish Inquisition (Sergio & Rudy). Stern wouldn't expect that. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

It's obvious Tim Donaghy has what it takes to bring the NBA down to it's knees. I don't know why anyone would be suprised to hear that more were more involved. Once agian Donaghy *was not *at the rigged Kings vs. Lakers game 6. So that would mean there would have to be more involved. Although to see the number of calls that were made is pretty interesting. Hell this story gets more interesting as it will go on. I'm pumped!!:biggrin:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Under oath? Why? Under what authority?
> 
> Ed O.



Justice Department, who is all over this case as it is. Stern was Donaghy's boss; Stern declared that Donaghy was acting alone.

If Stern has nothing to hide, then he can answer Donaghy's accusation about the 2002 King-Laker game among other things and not worry about perjuring himself.

Personally, I think the guy is just arrogant enough to possibly impose "the league's" will on the outcome of games.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Yes that is true, it is his Job to do so. But he is not the head of the NBA, he is an employee of the NBA and answers to the Board of Governors, which essentially is the owners. He has the power to fine owners for crossing the line, but he is not untouchable. If he screws up bad enough he can and will be fired and replaced.


I am not refuting any of the above and agree with it.

That said, Stern has the referees under the umbrella of the NBA; I am actually surprised that he hasn't at least been contacted by the Justice Department.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PapaG said:


> Justice Department, who is all over this case as it is. Stern was Donaghy's boss; Stern declared that Donaghy was acting alone.


I don't think that you have a very firm grasp on what the Justice Department can and should do. How is Stern supposed to be responsible or even 100% knowledgable of illegal activities taking place by his employee or employees?



> If Stern has nothing to hide, then he can answer Donaghy's accusation about the 2002 King-Laker game among other things and not worry about perjuring himself.


How do you know he already has not?

Believe it or not, investigations don't always make elements public.



> Personally, I think the guy is just arrogant enough to possibly impose "the league's" will on the outcome of games.


Ah... it comes out. You find Stern arrogant, so you want to persecute (and, seemingly prosecute) him. That make more sense. Your sense of entitlement is kinda disgusting to me, but I suppose it's at least consistent.

Ed O.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

this news coming out doesn't really change anything with the nba as far as i'm concerned. this isn't in any way evidence that the nba(or stern) was intentionally fixing games. all this means is that instead of one guy fixing games for his benefit, there appear to be two guys who were working together. and there still isn't even enough evidence to prove that.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

You know something is up when they levy huge fines for critisizing the officiating.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> You know something is up when they levy huge fines for critisizing the officiating.


huge shocker that you believe this. i would have never seen that coming.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> this news coming out doesn't really change anything with the nba as far as i'm concerned. this isn't in any way evidence that the nba(or stern) was intentionally fixing games. all this means is that instead of one guy fixing games for his benefit, there appear to be two guys who were working together. and there still isn't even enough evidence to prove that.


So Scott Foster was refefing that rigged Kings vs. Lakers game back in 2002? Becouse we already know Donaghy wasen't reffing it. If Scott Foster wasen't reffing it there would have to be more than just 2 guys working together involved don't ya think?eace:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BlazerFan22 said:


> So Scott Foster was refefing that rigged Kings vs. Lakers game back in 2002? Becouse we already know Donaghy wasen't reffing it. If Scott Foster wasen't reffing it there would have to be more than just 2 guys working together involved don't ya think?eace:


there's no more proof today that that game was rigged then there was in 2002.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

As far as the league being fixed, yeah, it is on a few levels;

1. Star treatment. We all saw Wade trip over his own feet driving against Roy in a game in Portland. Roy was whistled for the foul. Yes, that call cost Portland the game. 

2. How often do stars foul out of games? Rarely, unless it is an overtime game. Refs routinely give fouls to non-stars that were in the zip code to save the stars from fouling out.

3. How many times have we heard this, "that rookie needs to pay his dues before he gets that call?" Why does he have to pay his dues? Did the 1980 US Olympic Hockey team have to pay their dues against Russia? No, the game was officiated fairly and the Russians were upset by a team that was allowed to just play the game and let their play dictate the outcome. It would have been easy for a ref to award a penalty against the Americans and give the Russians a power play because the Russians were perceived to be better. They did not make stuff up, and the rest is history.

4. Ratings! How many times have we heard Stern talk about ratings and the need for the big market teams to be successful? Far too many. Every time I hear ratings bantied about I think of fixing games for ratings. Also, why is Stern letting the networks decide who plays playoff game on what days and at what times? Ever notice that the Lakers always have a very favorable playoff schedule? The networks do not want Kobe to look tired in their Nationally televised game so they give him, I mean the Lakers, an extra day off. They get more time to recuperate from nagging injuries and what not between games. Smaller market teams do not get this luxury unless they are playing that large market team.

And yes, I do believe that game six between the Lakers/Kings was influenced. I also believe that game seven between the Blazers/Lakers was influenced. Also game six between Blazers/Bulls. Why? Because huge leads evaporated in no time at all. Is it as simple as the refs just got cought up in the excitement and forgot to make calls for the Blazers and Kings? Possibly. But then those refs should be gone. And they were not. They were protected by Stern and his gestapo. I know, that was harsh, but Stern just acts like a little tyrant. I hope it was just very, very, very poor officiating that has caused good teams to be robbed. But when it is allowed to continue, naturally there will be doubters and questioners.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Dick Bavetta, who is a "league guy", who is the main one who is being attacked by former refs for being too buddy buddy with the players and coaches, reffed that Kings-Lakers game. (and Bavetta was the one who made the most gregerious calls).


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

kflo said:


> there's no more proof today that that game was rigged then there was in 2002.


Oh Cmon everybody knows that game was rigged even Phil Jackson knows it. Phil commented about it during one of his press conferences. I don't beleive Scott Foster nor Tim Donaghy worked that game.

Listion, I know some people may not want to agree with the fact that there is a problem with the league today. We love basketball.eace:


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

BlazerFan22 said:


> Oh Cmon everybody knows that game was rigged even Phil Jackson knows it. Phil commented about it during one of his press conferences. I don't beleive Scott Foster nor Tim Donaghy worked that game.
> 
> Listion, I know some people may not want to agree with the fact that there is a problem with the league today. We love basketball.eace:


he didn't actually give an opinion on whether it was rigged or not(which is what you did). he simply stated the fact that there is no proof. the game certainly seems suspicious but there is absolutely no proof to this point that it was rigged or anything of the sort.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Here's a little bit more on this subject, http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2008/10/gambling-maven.html


According to Bell's numbers:

The first 15 games of the 2006-07 refereed by Tim Donaghy that had big enough betting to move the point spread by at least 1.5 points were undefeated against Las Vegas - meaning that the big-money gamblers won 15 of 15 times on his games. The odds of that happening randomly are 32,768 to 1.

Here is what he said about referee Scott Foster whom Donaghy called 134 times from 2006-2007:

During the 2006-07 period under investigation, 10 games refereed by Scott Foster had lopsided enough betting on one team to move the point spread by at least 2 points; those ten teams were undefeated against Vegas – meaning that the big-money gamblers won a perfect 10 of 10 times on Foster’s games; the odds of that happening randomly are greater than 1000 to 1 against.


----------

