http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-donaghy/orlando-vs-boston-breakin_b_594441.htmlI don't gamble anymore. I'm both in recovery for my own addiction, and I work at Firstep Intervention, owned by Mike Osborne, a gambling treatment facility based in New Jersey. As a former NBA referee, with a story to tell about the crooked officiating in the venerable world of professional basketball, I have observed this years' Playoff Series with interest, and a little fear. In my book, Personal Foul, I created a 'blueprint' off of which most games, and in particular, many particular match-ups, are decided.
This year, to prove my point and with many stern warnings to people who thought they'd use my predictions to place a bet, I used my 'blueprint' to successfully pick the winners in 14 out of 16 games. With 87% accuracy, including having picked the winner of Game 5 of the Boston/Orlando game by 15 points, and having said that after Game 6, Orlando would be dusting off their golf clubs, I believe it's fair to say the 'blueprint' works. (Reality here, since this article was written he's allegedly won one more, the Flamers over Phoenix Gm 6.)
After every NBA game, each referee is required to review each game and write up a 'deep dive breakdown', a play-by-play analysis of their own performance. A copy of each report is sent immediately to the league office to compare against the report of an independent site observer who also ranks the refs' performances. To illustrate, I watched from start to finish, game 6 of the Boston/Orlando match-up (which I haven't done in three years), and I prepared a 'deep dive breakdown' for your own review. Read for yourself an insider's view of the bad calls, missed calls, and calls that clearly fall within the 'blueprint'. Then I dare you to tell me that the NBA's head office wasn't pulling for Boston...
Also interview with Dan Patrick
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/111801/index.htmlDP: Is there a difference in missing a call, or something that should be called, and extending the series.
TD: Well, I can give you another example. How about the 2003 L.A. Lakers and Sacramento game, which I also describe in detail in the book. Certain referees are used in certain situations, and openly discussed that if they were in a Game 5 or a Game 6, they openly favored the team that was down in the series because that's what was best for the league. That's what they were programmed and trained to do. And that's exactly what happened in that series. In my opinion, Sacramento was clearly the best team in the league in 2003, and should have went on to that championship series, and did not because of that Game Six.
DP: But are you saying you were specifically asked to extend that series or was it implied?
TD: When you sit in these meetings, they program and train the referees what to look for and what to let go, and it clearly puts a team like the Lakers in that series at a clear advantage moving forward.
DP: You stand by everything you wrote in that book?
TD: Absolutely, I stand by every word that's in the book. I've had calls and e-mails from owners and players who are excited about the possibility of the NBA now being a true athletic competition and not something where the referees are out there refereeing personalities.
Read More:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/danpatrick/blog/111801/index.html#ixzz0pfexx626
