Forgot about the actual data against this fool in terms of betting lines and the Donaghy era. http://www.aolnews.com/2008/07/16/the-gambling-evidence-does-not-look-great-for-scott-foster-or-th/
OKC was the road favorite at -1. Hmm... http://www.sportswagersource.com/oklahoma-city-thunder-vs-portland-blazers-betting-odds-262012/
Gambling is just like Alcohol addiction, you may get it under control buy you're never cured. • Portland is 8-4 SU in its last 12 games when playing Oklahoma City. • The total has gone UNDER in 13 of Portland’s last 17 games when playing Oklahoma City. • Portland is 7-2 SU in its last 9 games when playing at home against Oklahoma City. • Oklahoma City is 3-9 ATS in its last 12 games when playing Portland. • Oklahoma City is 2-7 SU in its last 9 games when playing on the road against Portland. • Oklahoma City is 2-4 ATS in its last 6 games when playing on the road against Portland. All the indications seemed to be in Portland's favor. What does this mean if your betting against them?
Stern clearly declared that Donaghy acted alone - ergo, any evidence to the contrary is a figment of our imaginations.
As far as the NBA is concerned, the investigation is closed. They would rather let crooked refs get away with it, than admit there might be a problem.
That much was clearly understood. What wasn't, however, was whether or not you believed Stern's all too familiar bullshit.
Great post. Even if the NBA researched the subject, and found that Foster was innocent....I would still ask the same question. If the fan base has a legitimate reason to believe that a referee is involved in throwing games, the damage has already been done, and you have to fire him. The world isn't always a fair place. If Foster is some how completely innocent, well, that sucks for him. But the NBA is bigger than Scott Foster. If he compromises the integrity of your league, even if it's by coincidence, I would fire him. But, realistically, those stats are not coincidental. The stats literally say there is a 99% chance Foster has and/or is throwing games. The NBA doesn't care enough to do anything about it. And this is the exact kind of NBA bullshit that caused me to cancel my Blazer's season tickets this year.
I'm not a big conspiracy person, but that "call" seemed to me to be a "decision". And I do think a full NBA investigation is warranted. It's not just that we lost a game we actually won, but that an NBA ref made a decision as to what the outcome would be when the opportunity presented itself.
From Canzano's article in the O today: I think it would be hilarious if the fans sitting near courtside all pull out their cellphones and start yelling "Hey Scott, it's Donaghy calling for you!" the next time Foster refs a game in Portland. I'll link Canzano's column because it does bring up the credibility issue simmering just beneath the surface for the NBA. http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/or...f/2012/02/canzano_nba_needs_more_instant.html
The more you look into Foster, the uglier it gets. Here is a write-up from a 2010 game. http://www.truthaboutit.net/2010/03/nba-referee-scott-foster-still-in-the-game.html
Found this on ESPN and am trying to validate it. If true, all of my suspicions about the NBA are confirmed. Same exact sort of betting action that I linked in the first post in this thread.
Well one thing is for sure. If Foster used to gamble; there is a big chance he is still gambling. It's an addiction and if you have a way to control the outcome; it's even more addictive. Seriously, if you knew you could count cards at a black jack table; and had a system that would make it hard to catch; would you count cards or play it fair?
It also would be funny to wave money at him, but the NBA might things that's a bit much. Then again, if the NBA is going to allow blatant cheating by refs, why can't fans point out how ridiculous it is by being ridiculous themselves.
It's a comment, and it was just sort of tucked into a long list with just one reply. It caught my eye because of my original post in this thread, and because it was well-written, which shouldn't matter, but it does to me.
I think the bigger issue is how a gambler can become beholden to the people with whom they place their bets. Betting on a game as a ref is one thing, but if betting lines are moving 3 points in one day, that speaks more to a larger scheme which requires a fix in the game. The crazy thing is, before Monday's game, I had almost completely forgot about the Donaghy scandal, and Scott Foster's role in it.
