Dissecting Prime Time Sports on Morris/Ibanez

To follow up to my initial piece on the Jerod Morris/Raul Ibanez controversy from this past week, I figured I'd discuss the reaction of the guys on Prime Time Sports on Friday. For those not familiar with it, Prime Time Sports is a radio/television program broadcast across Canada daily on the FAN 590 and its affiliates as well as Rogers Sportsnet. It's probably comparable in reach to ESPN's Around The Horn (a show I've complained about previously), but is generally much more insightful. The regular broadcasts tend to feature host Bob McCown and Globe and Mail writer par excellence Stephen Brunt interviewing top-tier guests from the media and sports worlds, and often have some great stuff. The Friday shows are more of an Around the Horn feel than an interview show, with a couple of other Toronto media personalities joining Brunt and McCown to discuss sports, but the emphasis still tends to be on thoughtful discussion over yelling and extreme opinions, which is nice to see. Unfortunately, that emphasis went out the window Friday.

First off, don't blame McCown and Brunt for this one; both were off this week. Instead, the Friday lineup was Sportsnet personality Rob Faulds, Sports Illustrated hockey writer and Fan 590 host Jim Kelley, National Post columnist Bruce Arthur and former Winnipeg sportscaster John Wells. Not a bad group of guys, though, and they have plenty of experience in the media, so you'd expect rationality from them. By and large, that failed to materialize, though. You can download the show here from the Fan 590 website. The Ibanez segment starts at 15:01 of the file and runs to about 26:30 (with a few minor tangents). Below, I look at some of the more outrageous quotes from the program.

Rob Faulds, introducing the story: "Raul Ibanez was not too happy with some accusations of a blogger saying that his great start was probably due to steroids. Now, this happens all the time with blogs. Where are they now fitting in, or do they even fit in?"

Analysis: First off, referring to Morris as just "a blogger" (I don't think they mentioned his name or his site anywhere, but I could be wrong on that) is one of the typical mainstream media failures of attribution I discussed here and isn't a good start. Guys like Morris who blog under their real name give up the benefits of anonymity and exchange them for the benefits of increased responsibility and accountability; the mainstream media should be willing to at least give them some credit for that.

Moreover, such a generic reference is a low-class move by Faulds and it doesn't bode well for the show. Without mentioning his name or the site, they force interested listeners to go to Google. They'd probably find Morris' material anyway, as one of his posts is the second result for "Ibanez steroids", but it might be tough to pick the original out from the massive amount of reaction pieces out there. That takes time, effort and persistence, and many people won't be willing to do that. Instead, they'll take the Prime Time Sports' guys' representation of Morris' words at face value, and that's a big mistake. In many ways, that's what started this whole thing off; what Morris wrote wasn't highly controversial or highly unusual on its own, but the way the Philadelphia Inquirer represented his story made it appear much worse than it was [Alana G, alanag.com]. Unfortunately, Prime Time Sports follows in those less-than-stellar footsteps with mischaracterizations of their own.

Bruce Arthur: "With journalism, we have gatekeepers. We have editors, we have safeguards, we have standards."
Jim Kelley: "What scares me is we’ve lost that gatekeeper wall if you will."

Analysis: This is one of the common refrains in the old-media hymnal, and it has some truth to it. Editors do add value at times and can make sure that what's reported is fair and accurate. The problem is that they don't always do that, though; check out Craig Silverman's Regret The Error site for a cornucopia of examples of where those editors, safeguards and standards have failed (see Blair, Jayson for one of the worst). That's not to say that the editorial standards and safeguards don't have value; of course they do. The point is that they aren't infallible. Furthermore, those editors, safeguards and standards are not universal; look at the difference between the New York Times and the New York Post for an excellent example.

The other key point here is that Arthur and Kelley, like so many mainstream media personalities, unfairly portray the blogosphere as full of people without editors, safeguards or standards. Many of the bigger blogs do have rigid editing processes, and everyone has safeguards and standards of some sort. Yes, many bloggers have their safeguards and standards below what the mainstream media considers acceptable, but you have to consider the audience as well; people read sites like Kissing Suzy Kolber for entertainment and opinion, not hard news, so it isn't as important to have rigid standards there. Those of us who run more serious sites do have safeguards and standards, and sometimes we are more conservative than the mainstream media thanks to the absence of a massive conglomerate backing our reporting. It's unfair to portray the mainstream media/blogosphere divide as a black and white picture where one group has rigid standards and the other doesn't; the real, grey truth is that each site or organization has its own standards and should be evaluated on its own merits.

Rob Faulds: "I have no problem with blogs. I have a problem with the facts, when the facts aren’t right."

Analysis: I hate to break it to you, Mr. Faulds, but mainstream media outlets get the facts wrong just as frequently as the blogosphere, sometimes more frequently. Part of that is because much of what they're reporting is new and original, so of course errors tend to be made, while it's harder to make definitive errors if you're writing an analysis piece (unless you misrepresent what's already been reported). In fact, your own lofty radio station isn't exactly pure and unblemished; consider the Sean Avery/Jason Blake flap, where the FAN reported that Avery had made derogatory remarks about Blake's leukemia. They weren't able to prove that, and FAN reporter Howard Berger had to apologize on-air [Regret The Error]. So, if your problem isn't with blogs but with bad facts, perhaps complain about the stick in your own eye before targeting the mote in someone else's.

Jim Kelley: "The guys you pointed out, the good bloggers, they have that grounded background in journalism for the most part."

Analysis: I can't say that a journalism background isn't helpful for blogging, as that's the area I come from as well. However, it certainly isn't a prerequisite. Many great bloggers have no background in journalism at all. As I wrote in my piece on Geoff Baker's similar criticisms, "It's part of a disturbing trend in the sports media where some sportswriters feel the need to claim that the experience they have covering other subjects makes them superior." Journalism backgrounds can be useful, but they certainly
aren't mandated for bloggers, and many can do great things without them.

Bruce Arthur, on the differences between how mainstream media and bloggers approach covering teams: "We don’t have an interest in making [the teams] look good necessarily."

Analysis: I think it's pretty hard to claim that all bloggers are out there to make the teams look good and the mainstream media are out there to keep them accountable. In fact, the converse is generally true. The limitations of mainstream pieces mean that you have to carefully differentiate news and opinion, and the preponderance of mainstream game stories or trade stories (news pieces) just tell you what happened (which I don't have a problem with, but it does mean that there isn't a lot of room for criticism or analysis in those stories). Sometimes, you'll see opinion columns on games or trades as well, which can be more critical and analytical, but aren't always. Meanwhile, most pieces on team blogs include plenty of opinion and analysis, and much of it is not favourable to the team's players, coaches or management. For example, consider the coverage of the Leafs in the Toronto Star and at the excellent Pension Plan Puppets. After reading pieces from the two sites, would you really say that PPP and his crew of writers have "an interest in making the team look good?" I don't think you would. I think you'd find that they're more critical than the mainstream media (even their site name is a shot at the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan's ownership stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment), and often for good reasons. They're certainly not sucking up to ownership or management, and I don't think most bloggers or mainstream outlets are.

Jim Kelley: "We’re in trouble, all of us, differentiating between truth and simply what’s out there. ... That’s where you need those gatekeepers."

Analysis: No, Mr. Kelley, we're not headed for some pending blogpocalypse where no one knows what truth is any more. Like mainstream newspapers and radio stations, blogs have to work to earn their credibility. The good outlets in either category will get the facts right more often then not, be accountable for what they write and report and admit it when they screw up. The bad ones won't. Sports fans aren't stupid; they're not going to take blogger Eklund's latest trade rumours as gospel (in fact, funnily enough, the most prominent mainstream outlet to give Eklund any attention at all was Kelley's own Rogers Sportsnet, which featured him on one of their trade deadline shows) or believe everything mainstream media writer Bruce "Malkin to the Kings" Garrioch writes [full credit to Greg Wyshynski of Puck Daddy for that name]. Both sides have their share of reputable and disreputable sources, and smart fans take each source's record into consideration. They're perfectly capable of separating truth from fiction on their own without your vaunted gatekeepers.

Bruce Arthur: "It's not just in sports either. This happens in politics an awful lot. During the 2008 presidential campaign, the stuff about Obama being a Muslim, was nothing. It was never anything and yet it got slipped into the undernews. ... It’s harder and harder to figure out what’s real and what isn’t."

Analysis: Yes, Mr. Arthur, misinformation comes out in politics too. However, plenty of Internet sites such as the Huffington Post played key roles in debunking that particular rumour, and mainstream sources like Fox News did more to spread it than anyone (which Arthur acknowledged, to his credit). Moreover, as I mentioned in the Baker post, in the lead-up to the 2004 election, it was CBS that was fabricating stories and bloggers that were proving them false [ZDNet]. You can't just say the blogosphere is responsible for propagating lies and the mainstream media always tells the truth; it doesn't quite work like that. Each source and story needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

Anyway, it sounds like some sense is beginning to prevail on this particular issue. Much of the reaction in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere has taken a more reasonable tone as of late, and the discussion of it at the Blogs With Balls panel yesterday sounded very positive from the Twitter updates I saw. It's just unfortunate that the Prime Time Sports guys, with one of the largest media platforms in Canada, couldn't use it more responsibly to thoroughly discuss the issue. Instead, they did offer some insight, but mixed it in with the kind of uninformed and vitriolic comments presented above. In my mind, that's a shame, and it reflects poorly on the state of sports media discussion in Canada.

Thoughts? Opinions? Questions? Leave them in the comments below, or e-mail me at andrew_bucholtz AT hotmail.com.

The shot heard round the world

Our society is becoming more cynical and jaded all the time. Nothing is pure any more. You can't enjoy food without thinking about its calories and trans fats, you can't wholeheartedly support any political party when you're aware of their scandals and betrayals, and you can't even buy a coffee or a shirt without thinking about where it came from and who made it for you. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; after all, it tends to allow us to see the shades of grey I'm so big on and consider the consequences of our actions. Still, it makes it tough to feel sheer elation and exhilaration about anything.

This transition from a shining ideological paradise to the dirty and grubby world of realpolitik has also happened in sports. Perhaps the best example is baseball's steroid era and the resulting Mitchell Report, the final illusion-shattering document I wrote about here. It's why people were so incensed about steroid use in baseball but willing to tolerate it to a greater degree in leagues like the NFL; baseball always sold itself as something more, something pure, a nostalgic slice of the good old days before corruption and taint, even if that wasn't always true (see Sox, Black). Gary Smith's fantastic Sports Illustrated article is a great look at this view of the sport and how steroids altered it.

It's not just baseball, though. Scandals have rocked other sports with similar results. In The Miracle of Castel Di Sangro, Joe McGinniss describes how an encounter with the seamy underbelly of Italian soccer (and the match-fixing that went hand-in-hand with said underworld) had a terrible effect on his view of the world. A similar malaise struck many basketball fans during the Tim Donaghy scandal. Beyond those scandals involving entire leagues, there have been plenty of exposés demonstrating that our athletic idols are not the heroes we had imagined, but perhaps more like the ancient Greek gods they're sometimes compared to; extremely powerful, but often greedy, capricious and self-centred. Other adventures with franchises and relocations such as the ongoing fight over the Phoenix Coyotes have dragged muddy aspects of the worlds of business, politics and nationalism into the once-shining realm of sport. With all this, it's rare to find a moment in sports that can be unashamedly embraced.

However, LeBron James' game-winning three-pointer against the Orlando Magic with no time left on the clock last night may be such a moment. Orlando had battled hard all game, rallying from a 23-point deficit in the second quarter to take the lead with only one second left in the game on a drive and jumper from Hedo Turkoglu. James made a great move on Turkoglu and broke out to the top of the key. With Turkoglu desperately lunging at him, he gets up a contested three-ball as the last seconds tick off the clock.

At this point, sensible minds had to think Cleveland was all but doomed. One second on the clock to inbound the ball and get up a contested shot? Maybe heroes or gods could pull that off, but in the mortal realms, the expected happens 99 per cent of the time. Moreover, James was the NBA's MVP this year, but he's renowned for his dominant inside game more than his shooting from long range or his clutch heroics. There's a good reason many NBA observers will still tell you that James may be the best player in the game, but they'd prefer having Kobe Bryant on the floor to launch a final buzzer-beater, especially if it's from downtown.

Letting James bomb away from three-point range with a hand in his face and without time to get properly set? That's a likely recipe for disaster, and a disaster that could have doomed Cleveland's title hopes. Going into Orlando down 2-0 against a Magic team that excelled on home court this year wouldn't have been at all promising. Thanks for coming, guys; hope you enjoyed your playoff run.

In millions of universes, perhaps that's how it ends. James' final effort bangs off the rim. Turkoglu and Dwight Howard jump in celebration; Stan Van Gundy celebrates on the bench. A disappointed and dejected crowd of Clevelanders that had pinned so many of their struggling city's hopes on this team, as excellently described by Joe Posnanski in this week's Sports Illustrated, file out of Quicken Loans Arena into the dark. Their hopes and expectations have been crushed yet again. Reality has set in, and so has the famous SI jinx that led Posnanski's friends to encourage him not to write the piece. The Cavaliers win the next game, but can't recover from a 2-0 deficit and fall to the Magic in six. The Magic go on to the Finals and fall to the Western Conference champions. The Cavaliers are torn by disappointment and infighting in the 2009-2010 season and fall in the conference semi-finals. James leaves for the bright lights of New York in the summer, and yet another of Cleveland's golden dreams has gone down in flames.

However, this universe is different. Maybe a few molecules of air are rearranged, or James releases his shot at a slightly different angle. The result is that James' incredible shot swishes its way through the basket, giving the Cavs a win that few could have expected only a second earlier and all the momentum in the series. James answers the critics in fine form and stuns us all, and in a way that no amount of cynicism or realism can taint. It was a pure sporting moment, untainted by business, politics or anything else. The NBA's commercials always promise us that the playoffs are "Where Amazing Happens"; last night, they were right.

The story isn't over yet. There's still a chance of the Magic bouncing back, of an implosion by the Cavs, of an upset in the Finals. If so, this will still be remembered as a great moment, but not a defining one. But if they go on to the title and if this shot proves to be the timing point, it will mark the coronation of King James in a more effective way than any sword-removal or dragon-slaying. Cleveland has its desperately-needed hero, and if he leads them to a glorious triumph, his deeds will be long remembered.

This moment goes beyond Cleveland, however. The NBA is a global game these days with fans all over the world. Regardless of which team they support, a feat of athleticism like the one James provided is an incredible display that can be appreciated by anyone. It transcends our highlight-saturated culture and our partisan divisions for just a brief moment, allowing us to go beyond the surface of sport and delve down to the pure core. For that moment, we can forget about court cases and relocation rumours. We can abandon griping about the refs, blasting players' off-court habits and complaining about high ticket prices. In that moment, we can see a reminder of what pure sport is.

That doesn't mean that idealism is back for good, though. There will certainly be plenty of ugly fouls, off-court drama and intrusions of business and politics over the rest of the playoffs. Bad calls will be made and endlessly debated. Cynicism and realism will return in force, and the sports world will revert to its normal shades of grey. But for one solitary moment with an exceptional feat, James brought an unsoiled flash of inspiration. He peeled back the curtain and allowed us to enjoy a pure sports moment in a way we rarely can any more.

Cuban the latest owner to get into SEC trouble

Things aren't going so well for Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks. First, it's reported that he's out of the running [Matt Snyder, FanHouse] to buy the Chicago Cubs [Al Yellon, Bleed Cubbie Blue], and now it comes out that the SEC has filed charges of insider trading against him [former Journal editor-in-chief Matt Hartley, The Globe and Mail]. As Hartley details, the crucial charge relates to a massive stock sale in Internet search engine company Mamma.com (now Copernic Inc.):

"The SEC alleged in [a] document that Mr. Cuban sold 600,000 shares of Mamma.com Inc. - now known as Copernic Inc. - after learning from executives that the Internet search engine company planned to make a public stock offering.

The documents allege Mr. Cuban, a shareholder in the Canadian company at the time, was invited to participate in the offering provided he kept the information confidential.

The complaint, filed by the U.S. regulator in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, states that “within hours” of receiving the information, Mr. Cuban called his broker and instructed him to sell all of his shares of the company."

That's very serious stuff. Cuban apparently plans to contest the charges, as he details on his blog, and it's important to keep in mind that nothing has been proven yet. It will be interesting to see what he uses in his defence, though. My guess would be that he'd either argue that it wasn't made clear that the information was not public at the time of the sale or that the sale was planned as a result of other, publicly available information. Insider trading cases are massively difficult, because timing, motivation and the question of what's "public" information can all be involved. However, formal SEC charges suggest that they have a fair bit of evidence to support their case. I'll be watching this one with interest.

Another element of interest is that this isn't the first time Cuban has been linked to controversial trading decisions. Bill Mann and Tim Hanson of the popular investing site The Motley Fool wrote an article back in July about a curious article on ShareSleuth, an investigative financial blog he runs. Sharesleuth editor Chris Carey wrote a piece back in March linking China Fire and Security to some notorious characters and questioning the company's management practices. In accordance with Sharesleuth policies, Carey disclosed at the time that Cuban had taken a short position in the company (for non-investment types, basically selling shares he didn't own on a gamble that the stock would drop). This paid off big-time, as the stock dropped 65 per cent after publication. What's interesting, though, is that Cuban covered the deal less than four months later, suggesting that these weren't ongoing problems. The stock has since rebounded, making Cuban's moves look mighty smart but also opportunistic. I have no knowledge of this situation beyond what the Motley Fool guys reported and what Wired picked up a little later, but, seen in juxtaposition with these latest charges, it's certainly interesting.

An unfortunate outcome of this is it probably will drive a stake through the heart of Cuban's dying bid to buy the Cubs. I generally like Cuban; he's a progressive, free-thinking owner of an extremely rare type, and I love that he maintains a blog to interact with fans. He'd bring fresh ideas and a great perspective to baseball, which could certainly use it. You can bet that this provides a great excuse for the the moribund traditionalists to keep him out of their club, though. If Cuban is found guilty, he shouldn't be an owner of any pro sports team in my mind, but that's only if he's eventually found guilty. If he is found guilty and leaves the Mavericks, the world of sport will certainly miss him.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this case is how common it's becoming in the world of pro sports, though. I believe Ottawa Senators owner Eugene Melnyk is still fighting it out with the SEC over this March complaint and litigation [SEC releases here and here], which cited "chronic fraudulent conduct". Melnyk's company, Biovail, settled for $10 million, but the information I found suggests that Melnyk and other company officers still face individual charges [SEC]. Anaheim Ducks owner Henry Samueli was also charged by the SEC back in May (SEC release here), admitted his guilt in June [E. Scott Reckard and Christopher Goffard, Los Angeles Times and was promptly suspended by the NHL [CBC.ca] and then had his plea deal rejected [Reckard, LA Times] in September. It's not unique to North American sports, either: consider all the problems exiled ex-Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had before he sold Manchester City. As the prices of franchises shoot up and up, wealth becomes more of a consideration and character less important, but it's terrible publicity for a league to have owners involved in something like this. Cuban isn't the first owner to get in trouble with the SEC, and I'm quite sure he won't be the last.

NHL: We've heard this song before

Does this story [David Shoalts, The Globe and Mail] about hockey players getting screwed out of their pension money seem familiar to anyone? It darn well should. The last man to mess with the players' pensions was former NHLPA czar Alan Eagleson and we all know how that worked out ["Eagleson Pleads Guilty", Maclean's via The Canadian Encyclopedia].

Casual students of the game would do well to remember that Eagleson's previous follies weren't exposed until Carl Brewer and Susan Foster courageously ran up massive legal bills trying to expose his shenanigans and Lawrence Eagle-Tribune sports editor Russ Conway spent over a year on Eagleson's trail. As written on Andrew's Stars Page, "Brewer, former player, and Conway, a newspaper writer, were instrumental in exposing the fraud and corruption during Alan Eagleson's reign as head of the NHLPA and his time as the most powerful man in hockey. It helped bring justice to hundreds of retired NHL players, and set the stage for big changes in the league's relations with the players."

On the face of it, this pension scandal doesn't seem to be as serious. There are still major issues at play, though, as the players are charging that the plan is shortchanging widows and beneficiaries to the tune of $1 million. Many will probably argue that the players make so much that this doesn't matter, but it's not really as extensive at that if you look at the average salaries and the average career lengths. Besides, as Shoalts writes, "The union believes the death benefit paid to the widows and other beneficiaries of players who died before they started collecting their NHL pensions was less than required by both the plan and by law."

When you bring in the "by law", that adds a new dimension. Pension rules are usually very strict, and the government doesn't take tinkering with them lightly. This could be very significant for the NHL and the NHLPA, and if it turns out that the shortage was intentional, that could add a whole new level of nastiness to the next collective bargaining session. We'll have to see how it turns out, but this could be big.

More scandal in soccer

Anyone who thinks Sepp Blatter and FIFA have any integrity left needs to read Andrew Jennings' story today in the Daily Telegraph about how a Swiss court recently ruled that FIFA had made attempts to deceive detectives investigating the missing $45 million embezzled by ISL, FIFA's former marketing agency, and forced them to pay some $57,000 in court costs as a result.

As Jennings writes, "In an extraordinary decision, three judges in Zug hearing a fraud trial into the collapse of Fifa’s former marketing partner, ISL, ruled earlier this month that football’s governing body 'knew more than they told investigators', that their behaviour “was not always in good faith”, and some of their claims 'were not credible.'"

That's pretty significant. FIFA's defence in the whole ISL case was that they didn't find out about the missing money and the kickbacks to top officials until it was too late, even though there was compelling evidence to the contrary. With this ruling, it's shown pretty clearly that the court is certainly skeptical of those claims and that FIFA likely made efforts to impede the investigation. An excellent overview of the case is provided in Jennings' article, and more detail can be found in his great book, but basically, it comes down to ISL running World Cup marketing for decades and paying massive kickbacks to FIFA officials for the right to do so. A solid backgrounder with plenty of detail can be found on the Sport Journalists' Association newsblog, where they relate a speech Jennings gave on the topic to the Play The Game international journalism conference in 2007.

On the court case itself: as a related story from The Canadian Press shows, some of the charges against the ISL executives didn't stick. However, one key figure, Jean-Marie Weber, was convicted of embezzlement. Weber has close ties to FIFA head Sepp Blatter, as related in this article from German news magazine Der Spiegel.

"The investigators are convinced that the money was then transferred from these entities to corrupt officials. But the traces have been wiped clean. Prosecutors believe at least one man knows the names of the beneficiaries, but he's the principal defendant in the trial: 65-year-old Jean-Marie Weber, the former vice-president of the ISMM supervisory board.
During the hearings, Weber behaved like Helmut Kohl, the former German chancellor and chairman of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), when confronted with charges of illegal party contributions. He kept his secrets to himself. The payments, Weber said under oath, were "confidential" and he intended to respect this "principle of confidentiality." Weber mentioned "commissions" and "fees" which had been paid "in parallel to the purchase or sale of rights."
An attorney from the small Swiss city of Baar described to investigators how silently Weber operated. The attorney had managed the almost six million francs that had been transferred from the Sunbow Foundation to Sicuretta, one of the front companies, in eight separate payments. The attorney said that he had withdrawn the entire sum in cash each time and turned it over to Jean-Marie Weber -- without getting a receipt.
According to the attorney, the money had been earmarked "for the acquisition of rights." The attorney was part of the network. Weber had invited him to attend a match at the football World Cup in Paris in 1998, where he introduced him to the freshly elected FIFA president, Joseph Blatter.
Weber and Blatter have known each other since the 1970s, when both men worked closely with former Adidas CEO Horst Dassler at the German company's corporate branch in the Alsace region of France. Blatter was the technical director of FIFA, Weber was Dassler's personal assistant. Dassler recognized early on how much untapped marketing potential big sporting competitions had for his company. And because he had always enjoyed the best of relations with FIFA officials and the International Olympic Committee, Dassler founded the ISL agency in 1982. He was soon merchandising for both the World Cup and the Olympic Games.
his pioneering phase was probably the period when Jean-Marie Weber learned the art of bribery. The ISL agency's rapid rise to the position of global industry leader, followed by its bankruptcy after 20 years (which ended when ISMM acquired it), apparently went hand in hand with lavish bribery budgets from the very start. One defendant told investigators that since its founding ISL had been involved in the "preferential treatment of important personalities in sports to promote its sports policy and economic goals."
After the early death of Adidas' Horst Dassler in 1987, according to the documents, Jean-Marie Weber took over the job of "cultivating relationships." The Alsace native, who was working without a written employment contract and for whom, at the time of the ISMM bankruptcy, a "base annual salary" of 870,000 Swiss francs had been negotiated, became one of the most mysterious figures in the business of international sports. He was dubbed "the man with the black list" in the industry.
Weber emulated Dassler, his role model. He used Sports Holding AG as a hub for "all sorts of payments that were dangerous from a tax perspective." The investigators learned of this through an attorney who was familiar with the internal procedures."

Hmm... so Blatter's buddy has been sent up the river for embezzlement, and there's convincing testimony implicating Blatter himself from former FIFA finance director Urs Linsi and former FIFA general secretary Michel Zen-Ruffinen. Yet, this is barely drawing any attention in the press, and most of the articles that mention it just briefly talk about FIFA having to pay court costs, with no discussion of the damaging testimony or the implications of this whatsoever. We all know there's plenty of sports scandals, but in my mind, this is the most significant: even the Donaghy case [The Associated Press via The Globe and Mail] didn't directly implicate David Stern? Is it any surprise that Blatter's choosing this week to sound off about "modern slavery" [Matt Lawless, The Daily Telegraph], domestic player development and his ridiculous 6+5 rule [Goal.com ], Cristiano Ronaldo [Jack Bell, The New York Times], the Olympics [CBC Sports], and everything else? I see a smokescreen, and the sad thing is, it appears to be working: plenty of people are happy to report on Blatter's various verbal fumblings, but the deeper scandal is going without a lot of coverage.

Sonics: How bizarre is this?

Now that's highly unusual: The Seattle Times is reporting [Jim Brunner and Sharon Pian Chan, The Seattle Times] that the Sonics and their owners have apparently agreed on a settlement, only hours before Judge Marsha Pechman was supposed to issue her ruling in the case. The timing of this is bizarre, as I don't see what either side has to gain by settling now. For the city, their aim throughout has been to try and enforce "specific performance" to make the team play at least two more seasons in Seattle, so it wouldn't seem to make sense for them to take a cash buyout at this stage when Judge Pechman might have ruled in their favour, and it's hard to imagine Clay "Buccaneer" Bennett agreeing to the Sonics staying in Seattle any longer than necessary. The other odd aspect to the timing is that both sides have already been fighting dirty: often, settlements are reached in cases like this one to try and prevent incriminating information from coming out in court, but it's hard to picture what else could come out in this one: we've already had scandalous e-mails, "Machiavellian" PowerPoint presentations and enough mudslinging for a federal election. If the Sonics were able to secure a buyout of the lease, then this makes sense for them, but I have no clue why the city would agree to that before at least finding out Judge Pechman's decision. There's apparently a press conference at 5 p.m. today: I'll have more details as they come out.

Update: 4:09 P.M. ET. The settlement is confirmed via an order from Judge Pechman, but still no details to be found.

NBA: Celtics are in the House, but Donaghy's shadow still lurks

Photo: Eddie House celebrates after the Celtics' win Thursday. [Photo from TrueHoop]

That was one of the craziest games I've ever seen last night. It looked to be all over at the end of the first quarter after the Lakers jumped out to a crazy 35-14 lead without Kobe Bryant even making a field goal, and things only got worse for the Celtics. This is possibly the only game I've ever seen where the announcers start predicting the win midway through the first. The Lakers justified their praise for a while, though, as it was 45-21 partway through the second, and 58-40 at the half.

Strangely enough, what probably turned the tide for the Celtics was an injury to one of their players. After Rajon Rondo proved utterly ineffective, Kendrick Perkins hurt his shoulder, which caused Doc Rivers to go to the smaller pairing of James Posey and Eddie House to replace them. House and Posey are both effective outside shooters, something that can rarely be said for either Perkins or Rondo. The substitution forced Bryant to choose between guarding House and helping the other Lakers. At first, Bryant doubled off House the way he had off of Rondo. House missed his first couple of open looks, but then started dropping them in. As a result, Bryant shifted back to guarding him, and Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett started making their shots. On the defensive end, Pierce switched to Bryant and absolutely shut him down.

Boston still had a long way to go, but they were pouring it on and the Lakers were starting to crack under the pressure. L.A. fought back down the stretch, but they couldn't handle the Celtics with all five guys on the floor draining shots. In the end, Boston prevailed 97-91, completing the biggest comeback since at least 1971 and perhaps the biggest ever [Matthew Sekeres, The Globe and Mail]. It was a huge team effort: Pierce had 20 points, seven assists and four boards, Garnett contributed 16 points and 11 rebounds, Ray Allen rediscovered his jump shot and knocked down 19 points while grabbing nine rebounds, Posey kicked in 18 points from the bench and House added 11 points and four rebounds while putting up a game-high +20 rating.

That was definitely one of the greatest NBA games I've seen, and the impressive thing was how it improved as it went on. The first quarter seemed so predictable, so one-sided: Boston would again lose on the road, the series would be even, and we'd probably be set for a long Finals.

I guess it's proof that the NBA can't always be predictable: in fact, the refs, probably on orders from on high to show neutrality in the wake of the new Donaghy revelations, did just that. The foul shots awarded wound up 29-28 Lakers, vastly different than the 38-10 Boston stat in Game Two, the 34-22 Lakers balance in Game Three or the 35-28 Boston discrepancy in Game One.

Now, certainly, plenty of people have taken that as an an excuse to discredit Donaghy's claims. To them, I have a couple of points to make. First, do you really think the NBA would try anything fishy right after a press conference decrying that they ever do anything of the like? Every journalist, blogger and fan in the world was watching this game under a microscope. In fact, if anything, the league probably used the Stern button [credit to Matt McHale, as always] to make sure the totals were lining up precisely.

Secondly, there's always non-interference by interference. Remember Newton's Third Law? "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Anyone who's ever taken physics knows that a body that isn't accelerating either has no force acting on it or two equally balanced forces. Think two equally strong guys pushing a rock from opposite sides: they're both interfering with it, but their interference cancels out, so it's like there's no outside force on the rock at all.

Bringing this back to basketball: it's highly unusual that team foul totals wind up within one. However, perhaps it isn't as odd when you consider the referees involved. Look at this pre-game post by FanHouse's Brett Edwards, breaking down the game not by player matchups, or coaching matchups, but by the officiating assignments! Where else but the NBA?

Anyway, Edwards referenced an interesting website that tracks officials' records "against the spread" in favour of the home team. Two of the officials picked for Game 4, Joe DeRosa and Tom Washington, were the first and fourth-biggest "homers" respectively by this site [covers.com]'s calculations, while the third, crew chief Steve Javie, was one of the biggest "anti-homers", or someone whose road teams consistently outperform their expectations. Add that up, and Edwards comes to the conclusion that it's pretty even. Hmmm... an even refereeing matchup producing almost a perfectly even distribution of fouls, just when the league's in the spotlight for foul discrepancies? Move along, nothing to see here.

Now, see, this is the crux of the NBA problem. I know that sounds perhaps convoluted, but you can't rule it out. It could just be that the officials acted normally, there were no problems and the game was won on the court. Think about the people involved, though, in particular David Stern. Stern strikes me as a bit of a control freak with a ridiculous amount of power. When his league comes under fire for this kind of incident, to the degree that he feels it's necessary to hold a pre-game press conference dealing specifically with the Donaghy allegations, do you think he's just going to trust that his referees will call everything fairly under such an intense microscope, or do you think he'll make sure they get the message to call the game in such a way that no one can question the officiating? I know where my money would go.

Anyways, consider the differentials from this series. +7 in Game One, +28 in Game Two, +12 in Game Three, all for the home team. The Lakers wound up losing by six: if they get even the marginal foul difference awarded to the home team in Game One, they have a chance to win this one. If they get the wider differentials awarded in Game Two or Game Three and hit them at the 75% rate they made during the match, they win.

This is the real tragedy of the Donaghy scandal: it doesn't permit you to sit there and just enjoy a great comeback or a quality win. You sit there wondering if the game's real or if it's fixed, and you really can't know for sure either way. I'd love to believe that the Celtics won due to great contributions from bench guys like House and Posey, excellent defence and solid production from their stars, and this probably is what actually happened. However, I can't dismiss the possibility that they merely played the Lakers to a draw, and their win was due to the sudden absence of the home-court advantage that's been so prevalent in these playoffs. The Donaghy scandal, and the latest accusations to come out of it, are like finding a worm in one apple in a bushel: all the other ones may be perfectly good, but you're awfully hesitant to take a bite.

Related:
- Mike has a good take on the game [The view from the Woods].
- Neate's thoughts over at Out of Left Field.
- A great piece on the Donaghy scandal at Sports on My Mind: I'll have more on that one later.
- Matt McHale, excellent as always, weighs in at Basketbawful and Deadspin.
- Henry Abbott has a great take on House's contributions [TrueHoop].
- Michael Grange of The Globe and Mail weighs in [From Deep].
- Bill Simmons has a marvellous running diary [ESPN].
- Will Leitch has a hilarious take on Kobe Bryant's post-game comments [Deadspin].

Donaghy's new allegations speak to basketball fans' worst fears

Photo: A screen capture of SI's original Tim Donaghy story from beRecruited.

Well, the NBA has managed to find a way to blow it yet again. The Tim Donaghy scandal had almost died down, and all of a sudden, the league starts demanding $1 million he doesn't have in restitution. In response, Donaghy's lawyers file letters and documents with the sentencing court alleging that officials altered the outcome of at least two specific games or playoff rounds: Game Six of the Los Angeles Lakers - Sacramento Kings Western Finals clash in 2002 and the Houston Rockets - Dallas Mavericks series in 2005.As respected ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson writes, accusations that easily could have stayed quiet have now become a dark shadow cutting to the very heart of the league.

"Donaghy's sentencing is scheduled for July 14. He faces a maximum of 25 years in prison for conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce. In the usual course of presentence investigations and procedures, the federal probation department asks the 'victim' about the damage resulting from the crime. As a 'victim' of Donaghy's crimes, the NBA claimed in a June 5 letter that it was entitled to $1 million in restitution from Donaghy. Restitution, or the reimbursement of the victim's losses, typically pays back a bank or a charity for money lost in an embezzlement or a theft. Donaghy obviously damaged the NBA and its reputation, but there is no indication he stole any money from the league. The NBA claimed that it was forced to spend the nice round sum of $1 million investigating Donaghy and the damage he caused, and the league wants its money back. Clearly enraged by the unexpected demand from the NBA for $1 million, Donaghy and [his lawyer John F.] Lauro retaliated with detailed accusations of manipulation by other referees. It is the worst nightmare for the NBA, which might now be reconsidering a withdrawal of its demand for restitution."

Here are the key allegations, from ESPN.com's story:

"Jeff Van Gundy ultimately backed off comments that a referee told him officials had targeted Yao Ming in the Houston Rockets' 2005 first-round playoff series against the Dallas Mavericks. Maybe Van Gundy was right after all.
A letter sent to the sentencing court on behalf of convicted former referee Tim Donaghy outlines just such a plan. It also alleges that referees helped alter the outcome of the controversial 2002 Game 6 playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings.
...
The letter also details an incident in the 2002 playoffs in which Donaghy alleges that two referees, who were known as NBA "company men," wanted to extend a series to seven games. "Team 5" could have wrapped up the series in Game 6 but saw two players foul out, lost the game and ultimately the series.
Only one series went to seven games in the 2002 playoffs: Lakers-Kings.
...
Donaghy also alleges that team executives conspired with the league to prevent star players from being called for too many fouls or being ejected. He claims that league officials told referees that doing so would 'hurt ticket sales and television ratings.'"

And two more from the New York Times:

"In their letter, Lauro and Donaghy make a number of other charges, among them:
That referees “socialized frequently with coaches and players” and asked for autographs and free merchandise, in violation of league rules.
That a referee’s relationship with one team’s general manager “led to an attempt by that referee to influence a game’s outcome” in 2004. Donaghy claimed that the referee in question told him that he planned to favor the general manager’s team in a game that night."

Lone Gunmen everywhere let loose a simultaneous shout of exultation when this news broke. Finally, all the debates about questionable NBA officiating and the league's conspiracy to influence the playoffs in favour of TV-rating darlings over the years (summarized nicely in this Basketbawful post by Matt McHale) have some tangible evidence from someone on the inside to back the conspiracy theory. Considering how well these theories have done over the years without this, this could be what kicks them into high gear. As Munson writes, this is perfect ammunition for those who question the NBA's credibility, especially because Donaghy's now naming specific instances. "The accusations are the kinds of things that fuel conspiracy theories that abound among NBA fans, but Donaghy is now adding dates, places and games," he writes.

If this was any other sport, this might not be as believable. However, this merely confirms fans' deepest fears about the dark side of the NBA. We already know Donaghy may have "subconsciously" influenced games [The Smoking Gun] in favour of his gambling positions, and that wasn't picked up for a long time: from there, it isn't a huge jump to other referees influencing games in favour of what the league sees as best for itself. Then you get situations in this year's playoffs like the Derek Fisher-Brent Barry incident and the foul discrepancies in Game Two of the Finals. In both cases, a result that just happened to be extremely convenient for the league occurred. Coincidence? Perhaps, but the more times these "coincidences" happen, the harder it becomes to believe that there's nothing to see here.

Donaghy picked a couple of strong examples to release, as well, further helping his cause. Many people have suspected that Lakers-Kings game (and series) was rigged ever since it happened (and Sacramento Bee columnist Ailene Voisin rather presciently predicted last summer that the Donaghy investigation might turn up new material on that fiasco). It was such a ridiculous game that even Ralph Nader called for an investigation, as detailed in Voisin's piece above. The Yao Ming scenario was also interesting: it led to ABC broadcaster Jeff Van Gundy commenting on the air that a working referee had told him that the refs were clamping down on Ming after Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban complained (the Mavericks won the series in seven games). Van Gundy was fined $100,000 by the league for his comments, but they're looking pretty accurate now. During halftime of tonight's game, he said he still thinks Ming was unfairly targeted but he doesn't give Donaghy any credibility: you have to wonder how much of that is just window dressing to avoid another fine, though.

In my mind, the biggest problem this produces is that the NBA can never completely prove its innocence, even if it turns out that they are innocent. No amount of denials is going to take away the suspicions in the minds of many, especially seeing as many of those doubts were implanted long before Donaghy came out with this latest information. We already know that David Stern doesn't particularly value truthfulness or history: now, the question is if he values the integrity of the game, or if the TV ratings are more important. The problem is, we may never really know for sure.

The last word on this matter should go to the National Post's Bruce Arthur, who rather brilliantly called this almost a year ago. Here's some of the best bits from his July 21, 2007 column on the Donaghy scandal (bolding mine), appropriately titled "Donaghy may become NBA's worst nightmare" with the kicker "Referee Scandal Could Rock League To The Core."

"After Game 5 of the 2006 NBA Finals, a Miami Herald columnist reported -- erroneously, as it turned out -- that after a controversial finish, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban turned towards the seats of NBA commissioner David Stern, and screamed, "F---you! F---you! Your league is rigged!"
Cuban never said it, and the columnist later issued a correction. He had reported it because someone told him it happened, and frankly, because it sounded plausible. One, because Cuban is a hothead. And two, because in the NBA, every conspiracy theory is believed.
Now, there appears to be an actual conspiracy. The New York Post first reported yesterday that an NBA referee is being investigated by the FBI for fixing the point spread in a number of games, in concert with organized crime, over the last two seasons."
...
Welcome to David Stern's worst nightmare. Bar none.
For that matter, if the allegations prove true, this is the worst nightmare of every sports league. The players can be criminals, and the games can be one-sided, and hell, Ron Artest could wade into the crowd and beat up a different fan each and every night. But when the integrity of the game is wounded, when that bedrock is cracked, it robs the game of all significance.
This is not steroids in baseball, or labour trouble in hockey, or even Michael Vick's sickening dog-fighting case. The only worst-case scenario is if a star player is the one doing the fixing, and even that may not be as bad. But a star is an aberration, a Pete Rose. A team is the 1919 Chicago White Sox. An official, at least in terms of perception, is institutional.
And in this case, this particular institution is an easy target. For some reason, people are perfectly willing to believe the worst about the NBA.
To be fair, gambling has had its tendrils threaded through in the NBA for years. Michael Jordan was a legendary gambler, at cards and on the golf course, and it was long speculated that his first retirement, in 1993, was in part league-ordered because of Jordan's alleged gambling problems. The 1997 book Money Players -- written by investigative reporter Armen Keteyian, New York Times columnist Harvey Araton, and investigative reporter Martin Dardis -- details allegations that Isiah Thomas wagered thousands in illegal dice games. There are more stories, whispered about throughout the league.
But none of those tendrils had ever demonstrably reached on to the court. Until now.
...
Now, every decision Donaghy made in the last two years will be scrutinized, again. And now, Stern is facing perhaps the biggest crisis of his 23-year tenure.
NBA referees have always been faced with more suspicion than in any other sport -- the league favours superstars, etc. And at every turn, Stern has vigorously defended his officials -- from charges of home-court bias, of incompetence, or of race bias, which was recently floated in a university study.
Now, if this gambling allegation is true, every borderline fan can suspect any call he or she doesn't like. My brother, a lifelong NBA fan, soured on the league after those 2006 Finals, in which Miami's Dwyane Wade seemed to get the benefit of every call. Many other fans went with him. How many more are on the ledge after this? Moreover, how does the NBA put a team in Las Vegas? How does the league maintain its integrity? How does it recover?
...
But this has the potential to bloody the NBA, and badly. This might have been the worst season in NBA history -- the short-lived change of basketballs, the injuries, the tanking, the whining, the All-Star fiasco (in Vegas, natch), the dead-dull playoffs, the playoff-altering suspensions, and finally, a dreadful NBA Finals.
But this is different. This might be the worst poison of all."

Sonics: The smoking e-mails

Wow. Just when it looked like the earth (or the gaping pit known as Oklahoma City) was about to open up and swallow the Sonics, the Seattle Times finds solid proof that Clay Bennett, Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward have been lying through their hat all along about trying to keep the team in Seattle. City lawyers preparing to sue the Sonics if they break their lease found some fantastic e-mails between the ownership group. In terms of pure evidence of blatant lies, these easily surpasses most of the Nixon tapes and is up there with Monica Lewinsky's famous dress. Just read this exchange from April 17, 2007, during the one-year grace period where they were supposedly making every effort to stay in Seattle:

Ward: "Is there any way to move here [Oklahoma City] for next season or are we doomed to have another lame duck season in Seattle?"

Bennett: "I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can. Thanks for hanging with me boys, the game is getting started!"

Ward: "That's the spirit!! I am willing to help any way I can to watch ball here [in Oklahoma City] next year."

McClendon: "Me too, thanks Clay!"

Compare that to Bennett's statement last August after McClendon was fined by the NBA for publicly announcing the group's plans to move. "It is my hope we will see a breakthrough in the next 60 days that will result in securing a new arena for the Sonics and Storm in the Greater Seattle area," Bennett said then. Back in April, he pledged to make a "good faith" effort to keep the team in Seattle.

Even better is an e-mail Bennett sent to NBA commissioner David Stern in August after the McClendon story: "You are just one of my favorite people on earth and I so cherish our relationship Sonics business aside. I would never breach your trust. As absolutely remarkable as it may seem, Aubrey and I have NEVER discussed moving the Sonics to Oklahoma City, nor have I discussed it with with ANY other members of our ownership group, I have been passionately committed to our process in Seattle, and have worked my ass off. The deal for me has NEVER changed: we will do all we can in the one year time frame (actually fifteen months) to affect the development of a successor venue to Key Arena, if we are unsuccessful at the end of the timeframe, October 31, 2007, we will then evaluate our options. I have never wavered and will not. Further I must say that when we bought the team I absolutely believed we would be successful in building a building."

This e-mail shows Bennett's arse-kissing skills in their full brilliance (and also, perhaps a bit of a conflict of interest for Stern?), along with his dire need of a lesson on punctuation. What's more important, though, is how he has been blatantly caught in a lie to the commissioner of the NBA. The other e-mails prove he discussed moving the team with both McClendon and Ward several months earlier, and was anything but "passionately committed" to Seattle: indeed, he told them he was "a man possessed" who would do everything to get the team out of town. Anyone in the same room as Bennett in the near future might not want to sit too close: his nose could unexpectedly grow a couple of feet.

Another really interesting piece of information can be found in the above e-mail, which also contains Stern's response to Bennett. "you and i are fine; i have been acting on the premise that everything you say about aubrey and your efforts is true--well before you said them; it pains me to to see the situation you are in, and i have difficulty conjuring a happy ending in seattle, but i appreciate your efforts and greatly value our friendship. i have a meeting with the ref advisory board on monday morning, which i will spend the day tomorrow preparing for, but we should try and talk early in the week--so i can calm you down. in friendship, david."

Well, the head of the NBA also could use some lessons in capitalization and punctuation. It's not entirely shocking to see such a lovely e-mail from Stern, who after all, served as Bennett's presenter when he was inducted into the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame last November. Funnily, as Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist Jim Moore wrote in his great piece on the Stern-Bennett relationship, Stern usually tries to act more intelligent than everyone else. "You don't know pompous until you've met David Stern, who talks condescendingly to the media and always sounds like he thinks he's smarter than you," he wrote. Apparently, his brilliance extends to writing poorly-punctuated uncapitalized love-in e-mails to his buddy Bennett.

What's more interesting is how this response really showcases Stern's bias in this situation: according to his e-mail, he presumed Bennett's claims of innocence even before Bennett offered them. Is that really the response the NBA commissioner should be taking to serious allegations in a sport so recently rocked by scandal? The e-mail exchange shows the depth of the Stern-Bennett ties. It will be interesting to see if Stern's at all upset to find out Bennett's been lying to him for months, or if he knew all along the "keep the team in Seattle" rhetoric was hollow. In any case, Stern's conflict of interest seems pretty apparent, and he should recuse himself from the upcoming April 17-18 Board of Governors deliberation on the move.

These e-mails should cast significant doubt on the proposed relocation. Do the other owners and governors really want a guy in their club who blatantly lies to the NBA commissioner, the media and everyone else? That might be even worse PR for the league than Mark Cuban's ill-fated attempt to ban bloggers (apart from himself, of course). In fairness to Cuban, he may have ridiculous policies towards bloggers, but even he recognizes that moving a team from Seattle to Oklahoma City is a terrible idea. Hopefully, some fellow owners will join him and listen to former U.S. Senator Slate Gordon (the lawyer representing the city of Seattle)'s plan to force Bennett to sell to local heroes Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, Seattle developer Matt Griffin and wireless magnate John Stanton: wouldn't you rather have those guys, their megabucks and their squeaky-clean by comparision images over a group that even co-owner McClendon described as "some rednecks from Oklahoma" who "made off with the team"?

There's one other possible outcome here: the return of former owner Howard Schultz, the Starbucks chairman and CEO who sold the Sonics to Bennett in the first place. Seth Kolloen, the executive editor of Sports Northwest Magazine, has a great piece about this on his blog. Schultz, as the previous owner, had Bennett sign a good-faith clause (Update: Link to a July 20 story by Jim Brunner of the Seattle Times confirming the good-faith clause) when he sold the team, which the e-mails clearly show him violating. Kolloen consulted University of Washington professor Joel Ngugi on if this could be enforced, and he came to the conclusion that it would probably have to be Schultz who took Bennett to task, rather than the city. However, it seemed from Ngugi's response that there's a pretty good chance Schultz could win (I included all of Ngugi's comments that Kolloen posted to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting him).

"Generally, even absent a specific 'good faith' term in a contract, every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing," Ngugi wrote. "As you can expect, it is notoriously difficult to determine if particular conduct comes within this definition. However, willful evasion of the spirit of a contract and lack of diligence in performing a specific term would usually come within the heart of the definition. The problem, of course, is determining if the good faith obligation assumed by Bennett and Company here was part of the spirit of the contract. ... The fact that Bennett and Company seemed not to have been acting in good faith during the negotiations of the contract (not just during its performance stage), however, raises other issues as well.It means that his lack of good faith goes to the very formation of the contract--because it vitiates [ed: law talk for 'invalidates'] the quality of consent given by the other side... Misrepresentation and fraud make the contract invalid."

That's awfully compelling. It's unclear if Schultz would be willing to step back in, but Starbucks is apparently looking for feedback on how to improve its lagging sales: saving an historic local franchise in your brand's global headquarters and recasting your CEO as a hero instead of a traitor in the process sounds like a pretty good start to me.

Update: Some more related pieces:
- Henry Abbott's piece on TrueHoop, where I first found this.
- Seth Kolloen's original post: he's been right on top of this situation.
- Commenter Charlie Anthe has some good analysis on this mess over at The Foghorn, particularly with respect to how it might cause more damage to the NBA's image.