Alan Millstein: Brady's chances of en banc hearing dramatically improved with latest amicus filings

letekro · Jul 2, 2016

RelocatedPatFan said:
You aren't used to people disagreeing with you? I find that somewhere between alarming and confusing.

I don't get it. Like I said, "people may disagree." Did you find that statement alarming, confusing, or both?

DarrylS · Jul 2, 2016

I thought this would be a long weekend, Friday afternoon dump.. wrong again.

PatsFanSince74 · Jul 2, 2016

TommyBrady12 said:
cA2 is off monday AND tuesday?

I don't think that Federal Judges, especially Appellate Judges, stress themselves very much.

PatsWickedPissah · Jul 2, 2016

Let me be the First here to utter the Groundhog Day weekly mantra...

"This week, THIS NEXT WEEK will be THE ONE that the justices issue their decision regarding review!"

Galeb · Jul 2, 2016

PatsWickedPissah said:
Let me be the First here to utter the Groundhog Day weekly mantra...

"This week, THIS NEXT WEEK will be THE ONE that the justices issue their decision regarding review!"

SHOWTIME15 · Jul 2, 2016

K

PatsFanSince74 said:
I don't think that Federal Judges, especially Appellate Judges, stress themselves very much.

Chin and Parker were pretty quick to get that decision out haha....

Mack Herron · Jul 2, 2016

PatsWickedPissah said:
Let me be the First here to utter the Groundhog Day weekly mantra...

"This week, THIS NEXT WEEK will be THE ONE that the justices issue their decision regarding review!"

What if there is no NEXT WEEK?

JoeSixPat · Jul 2, 2016

letekro said:
First of all, Donaghy provided this information in hopes of a reduced sentence, so take it with a grain of salt.

Second, like I said, he did not suggest that game 6 of Lakers Kings came from the league office.

Care to guess what the statistical chances are of one team having 18 more fouls called in the pivotal 4th quarter of a game that the League wanted to see the Lakers win to force Game 7?

It's pretty rare.

You're better off claiming that the Easter Bunny is real rather than assert that in a game where Donaghy told federal agents that to increase television ratings and ticket sales, "top executives of the NBA sought to manipulate games using referees" that this was all just a random occurance

And when Donaghy said "top NBA executives sought to manipulate games using referees" that doesn't sound like "NBA referees took it upon themselves to do something top NBA executives didn't want"

That's the whole point of this - that the NBA - not the refs - were the ones who would profit by Refs giving the Lakers an unfair advantage

Did Donaghy witness the NBA executives telling the Refs? Probably not - but he knows these guys, knows the NBA, knows that they decide who officiates the games, and knows that the NBA made clear they have a vested interest in a 7 game series

In legal terms it's Racketeering - the NBA refs committed the crime but the NBA itself was the beneficiary

Mafia bosses always insulate themselves from a direct link to the illegal activities even when they CLEARLY are the ones who are profiting and pulling strings

That's why the RICO act was created - allowing those pulling the strings to face charges and jail time even when underlings try to insulate the puppet masters

RayClay · Jul 2, 2016

letekro said:
First of all, Donaghy provided this information in hopes of a reduced sentence, so take it with a grain of salt.

Second, like I said, he did not suggest that game 6 of Lakers Kings came from the league office. He says that the two refs were company men that would act in the leagues interest. A "company man" will act in his company's interest without being ordered to do so. The document cited says that the referees themselves wanted to fix the game, not the league. This is different from the examples he gives where he says "top executives" ordered things, below.

Third, if you read the document cited, which, again, is a document written by his lawyer to justify a downward departure from federal sentencing guidelines, the examples he gives of "top executives" manipulating games are as follows:

1. Telling officials not to eject star players. Is this one a surprise, if true? Of course not. you don't think a ref should get reprimanded if he tosses Michael Jordan from a game for mouthing off?

2. Telling refs to call moving screens against a player on a team that was up 2-0 after the losing team complained. No where does Donaghy suggest the player was not committing moving screens. I mean, this is why coaches complain to refs before, during, and after games. What is wrong with the league reviewing the game tape and deciding that one player's illegal conduct is giving that team an unfair advantage and instructing the refs to flag that illegal conduct? Every coach in every sport complains with the hopes of obtaining this result.

So, in total, these are the incendiary allegations against league executives: 1. Instructing refs not to toss stars from games (duh) and 2. Instructing the refs to call fouls against one guy because the other team complained. If these are equivalent to "match fixing" then we have a different definition of the term.

Here is the link to the actual document his lawyer filed with the court.

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080610/donaghy03.pdf

So you're OK with refs throwing out average players, but never star players?

Clonamery · Jul 2, 2016

Mack Herron said:
What if there is no NEXT WEEK?

signbabybrady · Jul 2, 2016

Mack Herron said:
What if there is no NEXT WEEK?

XLIX · Jul 2, 2016

JoeSixPat said:
Care to guess what the statistical chances are of one team having 18 more fouls called in the pivotal 4th quarter of a game that the League wanted to see the Lakers win to force Game 7?

It's pretty rare.

You're better off claiming that the Easter Bunny is real rather than assert that in a game where Donaghy told federal agents that to increase television ratings and ticket sales, "top executives of the NBA sought to manipulate games using referees" that this was all just a random occurance

I don't really follow the NBA, but you are employing the same logic that the people employed when talking about how the Patriots' lack of fumbling "proved" they were cheating.

Fumbles are not a strictly random occurrence so if one team fumbles less than others by a statistically significant amount, that doesn't "prove" anything. Similarly, fouls are not a random occurrence. If one team fouls more than the other by a statistically significant amount, that doesn't "prove" anything.

Please note I'm not saying the accusations are true or untrue, I'm just pointing out the logical flaw at looking at drawing conclusions from statistics.

letekro · Jul 2, 2016

JoeSixPat said:
Care to guess what the statistical chances are of one team having 18 more fouls called in the pivotal 4th quarter of a game that the League wanted to see the Lakers win to force Game 7?

It's pretty rare.

You're better off claiming that the Easter Bunny is real rather than assert that in a game where Donaghy told federal agents that to increase television ratings and ticket sales, "top executives of the NBA sought to manipulate games using referees" that this was all just a random occurance

And when Donaghy said "top NBA executives sought to manipulate games using referees" that doesn't sound like "NBA referees took it upon themselves to do something top NBA executives didn't want"

That's the whole point of this - that the NBA - not the refs - were the ones who would profit by Refs giving the Lakers an unfair advantage

Did Donaghy witness the NBA executives telling the Refs? Probably not - but he knows these guys, knows the NBA, knows that they decide who officiates the games, and knows that the NBA made clear they have a vested interest in a 7 game series

In legal terms it's Racketeering - the NBA refs committed the crime but the NBA itself was the beneficiary

Mafia bosses always insulate themselves from a direct link to the illegal activities even when they CLEARLY are the ones who are profiting and pulling strings

That's why the RICO act was created - allowing those pulling the strings to face charges and jail time even when underlings try to insulate the puppet masters

The definition of a "company man" is that he does things to help the company. Clearly the league would have benefitted, but it doesn't follow that they ordered it. Donaghys lawyer was careful to say that he "officials" wanted a game 7 and not "executives" (yes, he implied it, but he did not expressly state it as he did with respect to the more benign allegations). The rest of the evidence doesn't suggest a league conspiracy--only 5 out of the last 30 Finals have gone 7 games, and many small market teams have excelled. I mean everyone saw that game knew something was up but the fact that that game was so much more egregious than the rest suggests rogue officials rather than league policy, doesn't it? That game was nothing like any other NBA game in my lifetime.

letekro · Jul 2, 2016

RayClay said:
So you're OK with refs throwing out average players, but never star players?

The legal purpose of the document that his lawyer filed with the court was to suggest that Donaghy gave up a bunch of hot leads to prosecutors in exchange for a reduced sentence. So, Of course the lawyer is going to spin the information as being sensational. I mean, if the official was reprimanded for throwing a star out, period, then that is wrong. But, being reprimanded for throwing a star out for something borderline? That's a different matter, because the fans want to see the stars play, they pay to see the stars play, and stars should get the benefit of the doubt on ejections. I have no problem with that. Of course, if those were the circumstances, Donaghy and his lawyer would not have described them as such because their goal was to sensationalize the evidence so that the Feds and Judge would agree that he gave them juicy bits and thereby reduce his sentence.

Not to mention, it surprises me a little that people here are treating the self-serving statements of a convicted felon trying to save his ass as the gospel truth. I think a small amount of skepticism is called for here.

Jackson 2 · Jul 2, 2016

XLIX said:
I don't really follow the NBA, but you are employing the same logic that the people employed when talking about how the Patriots' lack of fumbling "proved" they were cheating.

Fumbles are not a strictly random occurrence so if one team fumbles less than others by a statistically significant amount, that doesn't "prove" anything. Similarly, fouls are not a random occurrence. If one team fouls more than the other by a statistically significant amount, that doesn't "prove" anything.

Please note I'm not saying the accusations are true or untrue, I'm just pointing out the logical flaw at looking at drawing conclusions from statistics.

This post is like the Felger "cough...cough I'm not saying Ortiz did steroids..."

XLIX · Jul 2, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
This post is like the Felger "cough...cough I'm not saying Ortiz did steroids..."

Then you obviously didn't understand the post. Try reading it again.

Jackson 2 · Jul 2, 2016

XLIX said:
Then you obviously didn't understand the post. Try reading it again.

Oh, I understood it perfectly.

XLIX · Jul 2, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
Oh, I understood it perfectly.

Your comment indicates otherwise, but I'll have to just talk your word for it.

Jackson 2 · Jul 2, 2016

XLIX said:
Your comment indicates otherwise, but I'll have to just talk your word for it.

Nah, if I were you, I wouldn't. But, you can if you'd like.

XLIX · Jul 2, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
Nah, if I were you, I wouldn't. But, you can if you'd like.

OK then on your advice, I will go back to my original belief that, based on your reply, you clearly didn't understand my point.

If you have something intelligent to say in response to the point I made, please feel free to present such.

Alan Millstein: Brady's chances of en banc hearing dramatically improved with latest amicus filings

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

No asterisks

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Similar threads