ESPN: FBI Concludes Donaghy Was Truthful

[AHF]

But this only applies to the 2005 allegations because the 2002 were already beyond the statute of limitations and therefore not investigated by the FBI, according to ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson:

Quote:

---

Is the FBI investigating Donaghy's allegations? Will others be charged with crimes?

The FBI already has investigated the allegations. Donaghy first met with FBI agents in July 2007. A team of agents has been probing his stories ever since.

As the result of their investigations, federal prosecutors have filed what is known as a 5(k) letter. The 5(k) letter means the agents have checked on the stories and have concluded Donaghy was

truthful.

The 5(k) letter does not apply to the 2002 Western Conference finals Game 6 because the statute of limitations had expired. More than five years went by before Donaghy described that game to any agents. There was no reason to look into that game because no one could be charged with a crime. The 5(k) letter does apply to statements Donaghy made to agents regarding the three games in 2005.

The information could result in a reduction of Donaghy's prison sentence when Amon sentences him July 14. He faces a maximum of 33 months in prison under federal guidelines.

Although the FBI has concluded Donaghy was truthful, it does not mean others will be charged with crimes. Agents and prosecutors easily could have concluded that the rigging of the four games was reprehensible but did not qualify as a federal crime.

There was no indication of gambling or money laundering or racketeering on the part of the NBA in Donaghy's allegations. If the NBA wants to extend a series to a seventh game, it might be fraud upon the fans, but it is not a federal crime.

Interesting stuff. This answers some of the questions exodus and I were discussing and means that the government is not going to look into the 2002 game fixing allegations (assuming Munson is accurate).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=3439659

[exodus]

Quote:

---

The 5(k) letter does apply to statements Donaghy made to agents regarding the three games in 2005.

I didn't see what other games he was talking about other than the Yao incident which is pretty harmless.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The 5(k) letter does apply to statements Donaghy made to agents regarding the three games in 2005.

I didn't see what other games he was talking about other than the Yao incident which is pretty harmless.

I agree the Yao incident appears explainable, although the whole Van Gundy thing was pretty out there.

To the 2002 allegations, it means that Stern's statement that the FBI already concluded that Donaghy's 2002 game fixing is just flat wrong and that the FBI hasn't made any kind of determination on that or even investigated it. That is consistent with the refs who say they haven't been interviewed about it. It also means that whatever allegations they looked into with Bavetta were more recent and that the FBI has not concluded Donaghy was lying if the Bavetta investigation started with info from him.

[exodus]

I think both sides knew about the statute of limitations in regards to the 2002 game and tried to use that to their advantage. Stern could claim that the FBI didn't find anything wrong and Donaghy could say whatever he wanted knowing it wouldn't be investigated.

It looks like the actual allegations that Donaghy made were pretty harmless unless one of those other two 2005 games is a bombshell which i seriously doubt.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

It looks like the actual allegations that Donaghy made were pretty harmless unless one of those other two 2005 games is a bombshell which i seriously doubt.

If I understand your thought on this, it is that Cuban complained to the league about illegal screens, etc. from Yao; that the NBA officials were told to watch him and call that correctly; and that this is not a big deal. Assuming that is all true, I only have one problem. The NBA denied even this happened:

Quote:

---

The referee, Van Gundy said, told him that referees ''were looking at Yao harder because of Mark's complaints.''

Stu Jackson, the N.B.A's vice president, rejected Van Gundy's comments in a statement Sunday night. ''No such directive was given to the officials regarding Yao Ming or any other player or team in the playoffs,'' Jackson said.

If the refs were told to note the illegal screens by Yao and correct this, then Jackson's comment wasn't really honest. In any event, the FBI's conclusion that Donaghy was honest about 2005 calls Jackson's statement into serious question from my reading. Perhaps he had some other idea of the "directive" being alleged.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It looks like the actual allegations that Donaghy made were pretty harmless unless one of those other two 2005 games is a bombshell which i seriously doubt.

If I understand your thought on this, it is that Cuban complained to the league about illegal screens, etc. from Yao; that the NBA officials were told to watch him and call that correctly; and that this is not a big deal. Assuming that is all true, I only have one problem. The NBA denied even this happened:

Quote:

---

The referee, Van Gundy said, told him that referees ''were looking at Yao harder because of Mark's complaints.''

Stu Jackson, the N.B.A's vice president, rejected Van Gundy's comments in a statement Sunday night. ''No such directive was given to the officials regarding Yao Ming or any other player or team in the playoffs,'' Jackson said.

If the refs were told to note the illegal screens by Yao and correct this, then Jackson's comment wasn't really honest. In any event, the FBI's conclusion that Donaghy was honest about 2005 calls Jackson's statement into serious question from my reading. Perhaps he had some other idea of the "directive" being alleged.

So you expected Jackson to admit publicly that they missed offensive foul calls on Yao and that they paid more attention to them because of Cubans complaints?

As much as Stern has defended referees that would be a pretty unlikely admission.

[AHF]

Lying about it looks a lot like a cover-up and only feeds the problems today. It is a little tough for the NBA to credibly say on the one hand that this never happened and on the other hand to say that Yao was specifically discussed but it was all above-board.

Now Stern says the Game 6 allegations were investigated and rejected by the FBI when it appears that there was no such investigation.

My point is that these types of inaccurate public statements feed the flames and signal "cover-up" rather than "we did the right thing." It makes the PR job for the NBA all that much tougher.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Lying about it looks a lot like a cover-up and only feeds the problems today. It is a little tough for the NBA to credibly say on the one hand that this never happened and on the other hand to say that Yao was specifically discussed but it was all above-board.

Now Stern says the Game 6 allegations were investigated and rejected by the FBI when it appears that there was no such investigation.

My point is that these types of inaccurate public statements feed the flames and signal "cover-up" rather than "we did the right thing." It makes the PR job for the NBA all that much tougher.

I agree that they suck at PR. There may be a bit of that superiority complex at work here, thinking (like BK and sturt) that they are smarter than everyone else and are above criticism.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Lying about it looks a lot like a cover-up and only feeds the problems today. It is a little tough for the NBA to credibly say on the one hand that this never happened and on the other hand to say that Yao was specifically discussed but it was all above-board.

Now Stern says the Game 6 allegations were investigated and rejected by the FBI when it appears that there was no such investigation.

My point is that these types of inaccurate public statements feed the flames and signal "cover-up" rather than "we did the right thing." It makes the PR job for the NBA all that much tougher.

I agree that they suck at PR. There may be a bit of that superiority complex at work here, thinking (like BK and sturt) that they are smarter than everyone else and are above criticism.

... exodus, this is getting flattering... yet, sad... yet, spooky. You give little ol me sooooo much of your attention.

That is, I'm not sure whether to feel happy someone feels so disarmed by my posts that they feel compelled at every opportunity to try to shoot me down---even when I'm not even participating in the discussion (!)...

...or feel sorry for someone so consumed with putting someone else down that it has begun to seem to reflect upon their self-image...

... or feel like I should be sure to have my security system on at night, just in case I'm being stalked beyond the online stalking from you that routinely follows practically every post I put up.

Hmmm...

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Lying about it looks a lot like a cover-up and only feeds the problems today. It is a little tough for the NBA to credibly say on the one hand that this never happened and on the other hand to say that Yao was specifically discussed but it was all above-board.

Now Stern says the Game 6 allegations were investigated and rejected by the FBI when it appears that there was no such investigation.

My point is that these types of inaccurate public statements feed the flames and signal "cover-up" rather than "we did the right thing." It makes the PR job for the NBA all that much tougher.

I agree that they suck at PR. There may be a bit of that superiority complex at work here, thinking (like BK and sturt) that they are smarter than everyone else and are above criticism.

... exodus, this is getting flattering... yet, sad... yet, spooky. You give little ol me sooooo much of your attention.

That is, I'm not sure whether to feel happy someone feels so disarmed by my posts that they feel compelled at every opportunity to try to shoot me down---even when I'm not even participating in the discussion (!)...

...or feel sorry for someone so consumed with putting someone else down that it has begun to seem to reflect upon their self-image...

... or feel like I should be sure to have my security system on at night, just in case I'm being stalked beyond the online stalking from you that routinely follows practically every post I put up.

Hmmm...

Funny that you aren't disagreeing with me. maybe you are starting to wise up.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Lying about it looks a lot like a cover-up and only feeds the problems today. It is a little tough for the NBA to credibly say on the one hand that this never happened and on the other hand to say that Yao was specifically discussed but it was all above-board.

Now Stern says the Game 6 allegations were investigated and rejected by the FBI when it appears that there was no such investigation.

My point is that these types of inaccurate public statements feed the flames and signal "cover-up" rather than "we did the right thing." It makes the PR job for the NBA all that much tougher.

You know, now that I've essentially been invited into this dialogue, I have to ask... why are we being so resolute to approach this from a standpoint of Stern innocence? I mean, you talk about this in such a sterile way. AHF, you're ordinarily never scared to acknowledge the other options on the table. What gives? Ex, you're ordinarily always eager to suspect the other options on the table... and while you like to call me out for tending to give the benefit of a doubt to people who actually have enough reputation to gain a paying job in professional basketball... funny, but I've never read where you offered up an explanation for your decision to be a Stern apologist... is it because your expertise is solely in coaching and talent evaluation and Stern doesn't do either of those?

For my part, since you asked in some post at some point in time, I didn't come to the conclusion that I did about Stern for a good 10 years, and actually maybe closer to 12. Like several players and coaches who have now wondered aloud... very aloud... about the Lakers/Kings, I'd had that same experience the previous season with the Lakers/Blazers. "Something didn't feel right," I think one player (Pollard?) said, or something to that effect. And it felt so wrong, that I began thinking back to the change in the game over the previous decade or so, and put that together with much of the common, over-the-counter information that we all knew about the Stern management philosophy. You see, while no one ever hired me to evaluate basketball talent or coaches, I do have some background to draw upon where it concerns management of an organization. And to a lesser degree, there's a bit of a background in politics, which of course, isn't so distant from the discussion, either. Sooooo... that's where it all began, and why, for a long time now, I've been numbered with the ones who have been saying that I might not have it ALLLLLL right, but at least, there's something very askew here, not unlike Forrest Gump seeing those flashlights in that Watergate hotel room but not being totally certain what he was seeing... and with every new revelation, it appears Stern has been tip-toeing a very tight rope between his marketing-first paradigm and the transparency of his operations.

Why doesn't anything like this happen in the NFL? There could be a number of reasons, but just in terms of structure, the owners themselves are at the heart of the rules committee, and the owners essentially guide the officiating of games through that vehicle. Just by the sheer numbers of people involved in that process, the potential for league administration to be influencing the outcome of games in ways they should not be is largely avoided.

Some big storms here so I'm signing off for the evening...

All my best.

[scottt]

I do lots of criminal defense in Federal Courts so i am more than familiar with 5K. Section 5K 1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provides that the government may file a motion at sentencing to ask for a reduction in the Defendant's sentence because of "substantial assistance" to the government in the actual prosecution of someone else.

It is generally not enough to be merely "truthful" in debriefings with the government. The information provided must actually lead to someone else's prosecution.

i wonder what he told them and if he had any documentary evidence to support his claims?

[TheDude]

i tell ya. i pratically sell the NBA when i talk sports to other folks. Many don't seem to watch it, stating the old "i'll wait till the end and watch it" which i can't stand because that's not indicitive of only the NBA. but many/most say they don't watch nba....but i always say it's great, best athletes, artistic in a way, you can see the players and it's just frickin great..

but it's stuff like this that can just kill it.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

I've never read where you offered up an explanation for your decision to be a Stern apologist

My position on this case is a simple one. Fixing games is a serious charge and I am not going to believe it unless there is some hard evidence. I dont see that here. I am not one to believe in conspiracy theories no matter who they are about. I don't like President Bush but i think the idea that he had a hand in 911 is flat out nuts.

As far as the ref situation in general i would agree that Stern is overcontrolling/overprotective of the refs. I don't like the preferential treatment that stars get. I am amazed that the refs can be so consistently fooled by flopping. (Side note: the league plans to fine players for flopping next season. I am very curious to see how that plays out.

Overall I like the way Stern handles problems decisively. He is not a "leave it alone and maybe it will go away" type of commissioner (hello baseball).

When Artest went into the stands and all hell broke loose Stern dealt with the players harshly and put in penalties making it clear that this behavior wouldn't be tolerated. When GM's were wasting valuable first round picks gambling on risky high school players Stern put in the age limit. He readily admitted that it might be unfair to some players but that it was done in the best interest of the league. When corporate sponsors complained about the way players were dressed on the sidelines Stern put in the unpopular dress code. Players complained and Sterns response was basically get over it.

I have no problem with his marketing focus at all. Making money and increasing the games popularity can hardly be seen as bad things as far as i am concerned.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

My position on this case is a simple one. Fixing games is a serious charge and I am not going to believe it unless there is some hard evidence.

That's an interesting way to approach the matter.

However, here's the problem. He has no reason to lie. What reason does Donaghy have to lie?

It won't help his sentencing and I'm sure his lawyers were well aware of that.

The only real reason he has to bring this out is to clear his conscience.

Now, look at the other vantage point.

We have games that have had suspect calls. Important calls that would have effected the outcome of the game and the series.

That's motive enough for Stern to lie.

Here's the last vantage...

What has Stern done to deserve a complete belief from the fans. He basically says, you're going to take what I say and you will like it and I don't have to answer to anybody but the owners.

STERN WORKS FOR THE OWNERS...

Not the players.

Not the refs.

Not the fans.

He works for the owners. If the game is prosperous, Stern has done his job.

At his control is influence over refs.

Why are we so quick to take Stern's word as law?

[exodus]

Quote:

---

What reason does Donaghy have to lie?

Look at what his allegations were. Basically it was just 3 games in 2005. One of them the refs were instructed to watch Yao for moving screens. Big deal. I am not sure what the other two games were. If it was something serious you would think it would have been reported.

The 2002 game was conveniently beyond 5 years (which i am sure both parties knew) and therefore wasn't investigated.

This whole thing reminds me of the Hawks 2006 offseason. I believe it was Mullin who said they were going to bring in a quality big that everyone who know and like. Then they signed Blo Wright. Big buildup about nothing.

Quote:

---

STERN WORKS FOR THE OWNERS...

Not the players.

Not the refs.

Not the fans.

He works for the owners. If the game is prosperous, Stern has done his job.

At his control is influence over refs.

I don't take his word as law. However i am going to assume that someone is innocent of a serious offense unless i see clear evidence of guilt. i don't see that here.

I am not comfortable with the degree of control he has over the refs and the protection he has shown them but that doesn't mean i think he is guilty of fixing games.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What reason does Donaghy have to lie?

Look at what his allegations were. Basically it was just 3 games in 2005. One of them the refs were instructed to watch Yao for moving screens. Big deal. I am not sure what the other two games were. If it was something serious you would think it would have been reported.

The 2002 game was conveniently beyond 5 years (which i am sure both parties knew) and therefore wasn't investigated.

This whole thing reminds me of the Hawks 2006 offseason. I believe it was Mullin who said they were going to bring in a quality big that everyone who know and like. Then they signed Blo Wright. Big buildup about nothing.

Quote:

---

STERN WORKS FOR THE OWNERS...

Not the players.

Not the refs.

Not the fans.

He works for the owners. If the game is prosperous, Stern has done his job.

At his control is influence over refs.

I don't take his word as law. However i am going to assume that someone is innocent of a serious offense unless i see clear evidence of guilt. i don't see that here.

I am not comfortable with the degree of control he has over the refs and the protection he has shown them but that doesn't mean i think he is guilty of fixing games.

After reading you reply, I don't think you have attempted to answer the question. What does Donaghy have to lie about? Where's the benefit for him? Especially 2002?

That's evidence right there. The fact that the game was one of the worst officiated games in the history of basketball (according to Mike Wilborn) add to that now, Donaghy says the fix was in.... What more evidence do you need? Deepthroat? A note? A secret Decoder?

It's not rocket science here ex... It's plain and simple. The policy that the NBA has with it's referees and how they review themselves is unknown... and unreported.

Just think. There are 1230 NBA games. There are 63 refs... 21 ref crews... Over the time of the NBA games, Stern can have a crew or two that does his bidding. He can set the mode for any playoff game he so chooses.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Just think.

There are 1230 NBA games

. There are 63 refs... 21 ref crews... Over the time of the NBA games, Stern can have a crew or two that does his bidding. He can set the mode for any playoff game he so chooses.

Which is why if games really were being fixed i would think that Donaghy could come up with a game that was actually within the statute of limitations.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that Donaghy's most (or only) serious allegation against the league occured after the statute of limitations was up?

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Just think.

There are 1230 NBA games

. There are 63 refs... 21 ref crews... Over the time of the NBA games, Stern can have a crew or two that does his bidding. He can set the mode for any playoff game he so chooses.

Which is why if games really were being fixed i would think that Donaghy could come up with a game that was actually within the statute of limitations.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that Donaghy's most (or only) serious allegation against the league occured after the statute of limitations was up?

If there are 21 ref crews... Over the process of a season, Donaghy is not going to ref every game. Hell, he won't ref most games. Moreover, he might not have been a "company" man. Remember, There are certain refs who you always see during the playoffs. Doesn't that strike you as odd? With the possibility of 21 ref crews, during the playoffs, Stern uses a select few?

I don't think Stern would be as interested in fixing all 1230 games. That's ridiculous. However, I do think that he would do what he could to make sure that a profitable matchup gets to the finals. And that's what seems to have happened in 2002. Donaghy has no reason to lie about that.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Over the process of a season, Donaghy is not going to ref every game. Hell, he won't ref most games.

He didn't ref that 2002 game either but he heard about it. Seems strange that he didn't hear about any game fixing during the 6500 games over the previous 5 years.

Quote:

---

I do think that he would do what he could to make sure that a profitable matchup gets to the finals

I guess that explains why the Spurs and Pistons have been so successful in the playoffs. They are such fan favorites.

It would also explain why the Suns always seem to come up short in the playoffs since nobody likes them.