http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2943095

FBI probes allegations NBA ref bet on games he worked

The FBI is reportedly investigating an NBA referee who was allegedly betting on basketball games, including games he worked in the past two seasons.

The New York Post first reported Friday that the year-long investigation is focusing on allegations that the referee bet on games and was making calls that affected the point spread on games. The newspaper reported that according to sources, an arrest of the referee was imminent and that NBA Commissioner David Stern is aware of the investigation.

According to the Post, the referee's name was withheld.

The the head of the referees union said it was aware of the probe, Bloomberg News reported.

"These accusations, if true, are extremely serious and we have been in discussions with the NBA regarding this matter,'' Lamell McMorris, head of the NBA Referees Association, told Bloomberg News. "In light of the fact that this is an ongoing federal criminal investigation, we have nothing further to say at this time."

Bloomberg reported that an NBA spokesman and league executive Stu Jackson, who oversees referees, phone messages seeking comment Friday morning. The Post reported that the FBI declined comment on the investigation.


----

So, Peeps, are you still convinced that NBA games can't be fixed?

Wow, that is big news. Also, this gives more ammunition to all of the conspiracy theorists out there.

This has to be Javie, Crawford, or Salvatore, right?

yeah peeps!

this is really shitty...but its not like he was raising dogs to kill each other

There goes Vegas' chances of getting a team

No, but it's certainly worse than, say, Pete Rose betting on his team to win. Or any sports player betting on a game he's not involved in. This is really about as unethical as sports gambling can get.

yeah i completely agree.

More info:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07202007/ne ... _weiss.htm


NBA IN A 'FIX'
FEDS PROBING REF IN MAFIA BET SCAM

By MURRAY WEISS
July 20, 2007 -- THE FBI is investigating an NBA referee who allegedly was betting on basketball games - including ones he was officiating during the past two seasons - as part of an organized-crime probe in the Big Apple, The Post has learned.

The investigation, which began more than a year ago, is zeroing in on blockbuster allegations that the referee was making calls that affected the point spread to guarantee that he - and the hoods who had their hooks in him - cashed in on large bets.

Federal agents are set to arrest the referee and a cadre of mobsters and their associates who lined their pockets, sources said.

"These are dangerous people [the referee] was involved with," a source said.

One source close to the probe counted the number of games on which the ref and his wiseguy buddies scored windfalls in the "double digits."

NBA Commissioner David Stern is aware of the investigation and has a report about the referee on his desk, another source said.

The official, whose name was withheld, allegedly wagered on games during the 2005-06 and 2006-07 NBA seasons.

James Margolin, an FBI spokesman, declined comment on the latest black eye for professional sports.

The sources indicated the referee apparently had a gambling problem, slipped into debt and fell prey to mob thugs.

"That's how he got himself into this predicament" by wagering with mob-connected bookies, one source said.

Professional basketball has remained largely unscathed by allegations of game-fixing, although college basketball has been rocked by several scandals involving point-shaving by players, but not officials.

One of the most recent was a Boston College point-shaving scam arranged in the 1980s by mobster Henry Hill, who bribed several players. Hill later became a government informant, and his life was depicted in the movie "GoodFellas."

Having a referee in their pockets provides a two-fold bonanza to game fixers.

Gamblers would be able to directly cash in by betting on games where they knew the point spread was compromised.

But having a ref in their pocket could prove even more lucrative to crooks in a bookmaking syndicate.

Bookmakers hope to encourage an equal amount of betting on each team and make their money on the "vigorish," which is typically 10 percent of a losing bet.

But armed with the inside information, the bookmaking syndicate could set an artificial point spread that would encourage large "layoff" bets from other bookies carrying too much action on one team, that were likely now to lose.

An FBI organized-crime squad in the bureau's flagship New York office is handling the case, but the referee traveled the country officiating various games on which he allegedly bet.

It was not determined which games were allegedly affected by the referee's actions, or how much money may have been won by him and his cohorts.

The FBI got wind of the scheme while conducting a separate mob investigation.

The most prominent American sport- gambling scandal in recent history involved Cincinnati Reds manager Pete Rose, who was banned from baseball in 1989 for betting on his own team.

Based largely on testimony of two Rose associates, Ron Peters and Paul Janszen, Major League Baseball determined that from 1985 through 1987, Rose bet on baseball, including 52 Reds games in 1987, at a minimum of $10,000 a game.

All of Rose's bets on Cincinnati were to win.

can you believe this? in this day and age, a jew broad prejudice against italians!?!

shaving points is bad...but making calls that affect who actually wins or loses would be worse.

and I'm not sure how what Rose did is any better than this. Even when you bet on your team you win, you might make decisions (pitching moves in particular) that you wouldn't normally make in the course of a game to win the bet...which would then affect any subsequent games as well.

I didn't say what Pete Rose did was ok, but clearly you can't fix a game for your team to win if you're playing. If you're an official, however, you do have certain abilities that players don't have that can affect the outcome of the game either way. A player can only compromise a game if he's betting against his team.

"That guy played well. Too well...."

but a manager can compromise his team's chances for the following day in trying to win a game/bet the day before.

Yeah perhaps he could, but he doesn't have to break any rules to do so. He could decide he wants to win a certain game and compromise his chances for the following day without making a bet. An official, however, always has a responsibility to make the correct call, even if there's no bet. If he purposely makes a bad call, he's compromising the integrity of the game regardless of any bet. The officials are there to make the game fair, and they have much more power to sway the outcome of the game than a player or manager.

i completely agree, i mean, it is fucking insane that a manager would try to win a game today instead of winning tomorrows game. what kind of wacky world are we living in that this is acceptable?



still doesnt convince me that the NBA is fixed for stern

I guess a narrow minded idiot like yourself can't grasp the concept of a manager making a move he wouldn't normally have made because he has $$ on the game. You've proven on several occasions you're inability to understand the complex maze of rules and traditions that make up baseball (although most 8-year-olds have no trouble picking it up) ...so here's a quick lesson: almost every time you use a relief pitcher, you're impacting his availability in subsequent games. The Dowd report identified certain patterns in the way Rose used (or didn't use) certain pitchers depending on whether or not he had money on the game. Got it?

but...but...i know people who know duke lax players, theyre guilty...guilty....GUILTY i say

i know the basic rules of baseball (though the whole, stretching a single to a double and getting tagged out still counting as a hit amazes me to no end) but if you sacrafice your relief pitcher today instead of going for the win, and you win tomorrow, you are 1-1 for those two games.

if you put your relief pitcher in today and get the win, but he cant pitch tomorrow and you lose, for those two games, you are

Spoiler: show

1-1 *shock*

i also love how you think im narrow minded because i think baseball is just a smidge higher on the worthless meter than soccer is

wow. are you serious? it's slightly more complicated than that. I guess that's why you're struggling with it.

i used two back to back games as an example, but it can be played out over the course of a few games if it makes you feel better

if as a manager you do not use your relief pitcher for a few games, or use him very sparringly and your team still loses because of it, it is no different. if you do not try to win every game you have a shot at (for arguments sake, i wouldnt fault a manager for putting a reliever in a 13 run blowout) that is say, 1 or 2 runs, because you want to be sure you win 1 or two games down the road, thats not managing to the best of your ability, imo

it's not about having the ability to win games down the road. It's about preserving your arms for the long haul so guys don't end up on the DL or ineffective. Mariano Rivera wasn't going to pitch for the yankees yesterday because he'd appeared in 4/5 games. He's the best relief pitcher the Yankees have by a mile...and would have given them the best chance to win if needed yesterday...but he wasn't pitching regardless of the circumstances because of the potential damage it could do to him down the road. A manager betting on yesterday's game might have acted differently.

And a manager who refuses to use a certain pitcher in games he's betting on runs the risk of having that guy lose his command/confidence because he's not being used enough. Or maybe a manager saves a guy for tomorrow (a game he's betting on) instead of using him in a close game when he's really needed. But then the team ends up getting blown out in the next game...and the reliever isn't needed at all. Rose supposedly never bet on the Reds when two particular starting pitchers were throwing. It's certainly possible he left those guys in a little longer than he should have a few times simply because he didn't want to burn bullpen arms in a game he didn't have money on.

The minute a manager makes a decision that's based on his bet as opposed to the best interests of the team over a 162 season....dozens of subsequent pitching decisions are potentially compromised.