Rare NBA talk: David Stern's crushed PR problem just got real, again

Though I wouldn't ordinarily talk about the NBA or matters related to it, I just finished a column on the Tim Donaghy scandal, which I wanted to share because its message may be timely to the Tiger Woods saga.


My sporting passions are, obviously: golf, NBA basketball -- Chicago Bulls in particular and definitely not anything to do, even remotely, with NCAA basketball -- and European football (soccer for the haters). But, since I already write about golf, nobody wants to hear me talk about Euro football, and since stories about the Bulls like this are flooding the Internet, I don't mind providing my own NBA talk, I guess.

If he was watching CBS on Sunday night, I hope David Stern had a Macallan 18, a clean tumbler, and an ice bucket nearby. The NBA Commissioner’s once vitiated public relations disaster resurrected itself as an iconic Bob Simon interviewed disgraced former referee Tim Donaghy on “60 Minutes.”

As Tim Donaghy told his story of gambling addiction and blackmail, he attempted to repudiate any accusation that he may have fixed games. Far from disbeliefs in that truthfulness, are the allegations put forth by Donaghy that NBA referees are overtly biased in their relationships with players. More troubling, that referees behave as schoolchild vigilantes on behalf of their fellow comrades that have been embarrassed by a player. This, to extent that a handicapper with an intimate knowledge of referee concerns and tendencies can gamble on basketball with an 80 percent success rate.

Anyone with a NBA IQ above an infant is aware of preferential referee treatment of the league’s superstars, maybe even a preferential treatment of marquee teams, depending on your level of religiosity in the church of NBA conspiracy theory.

But, to say that referees exercise personal (or even communal) agendas, or that the NBA front office directs referees to lengthen playoff series through their refereeing, is like saying that the French judge was pressured to vote for the Russian figure skating duo at the 2002 Winter Olympics – oh wait, that did actually happen.

Donaghy openly admits to gambling and providing betting tips on games that he officiated, but is adamant in his denial of any game fixing.

Any reasonable, analytical person has to ask him or herself, “Can you really bet on something, possess the ability to control the outcome favorably, and not use it, even if it’s subconsciously?”

Donaghy was quick to point to the, now, infamous Spurs game where he ejected head coach Gregg Popovich, although he had instructed the mob to bet on the Spurs. Maybe it’s cynicism, but is it not overtly, almost unrealistically, ironic that Donaghy, who was being blackmailed through death threats to him and his family, stood up against game fixing by ejecting the coach of the team he told his blackmailers to bet on?

To me, that sounds like a guy being accused of tax evasion that, in defense, uses a receipt to show that he paid sales tax on his Ferrari, although he only reported an income of $35,000.

Perhaps, Donaghy was a gambling addict and he deserves a small pass, as addicts should receive. Perhaps, Donaghy’s downfall was actually that the Gambino crime family blackmailed him. Perhaps, Donaghy’s allegations surrounding the NBA are actually true. But, if they are, would they not be more seminal if he released them in a way other than a book at a suggested retail price of $25?

Why is it that Andre Agassi, who feels that he has a compelling life story to share, tells the world of his methamphetamine use in a book with a listed price of $28.95? Why is it that Theo Fleury tells his life story of vice that derailed his hockey career in a book with a listed price of $24.95? Why is it that Jose Canseco exposes steroid use in Major League Baseball in a book, and then a second book, at current listed prices of $15.99 and $25.99?

Is this a cultural expectation?

Do we now expect Tiger Woods to release a book, “Not in the Fairway, not in my Marital Bedroom: A Story of Majors, Machismo, and Promiscuity?”

Maybe Donaghy’s sincerity was meant to be illustrated on camera, with his Richard Nixon-esque upper-lip perspiration, his middle-America, Bob Newhart-esque tweed beige sport coat or his matching unbuttoned dress shirt, or maybe even the honest American, Sarah Palin-esque ambiguity and lack of substance in his responses?

If that was the case, then Donaghy is either not smart or is receiving bad public relations advice.

Dongahy apologizes by institutionalizing himself as a martyr. He is a victim – the NBA didn’t provide him with an education on the dangers of gambling; he didn’t do anything wrong, as he was an addict and as he wasn’t the only referee to lack quality judgment in his (or Violet’s) refereeing.

Honesty, compassion, and utilitarianism are the only face saving measures for an athlete –that, and winning again – and it’s even more difficult for a referee working in a profession often loathed by sports fans. I struggle to accept an apology or an altruistic expose that comes from a retail book. If it were heartfelt, if it were sincere, it would have been provided in a 5-minute YouTube video or a passionate letter posted on the Internet, for free, for all with an interest to suffer through.

Tim Donaghy, I guess, is apologizing to fans for bastardizing the NBA. But, only if they spend $25. Don’t call it capitalism; call it what it is, which, at best, is fraud in its idea and profligatory in its practice.

Because they deserve it, if anybody wants NBA talk -- don't come here -- but instead turn to these guys, all of which write better, are perhaps more intellectual, and are definitely more basketball savvy than I am: Bethlehem Shoals, Free Darko, Disciples of Clyde, John Hollinger, Kelly Dwyer, J.E. Skeets, Henry Abbott.