NY Post - Referee / Mafia NBA Fix
stown
Posts: 11,321 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Yes, it's the Post but still. I've always believed there was something fishy going on in the NBA.
Link
NBA IN A 'FIX'
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.
Link
NBA IN A 'FIX'
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.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
0
Comments
<< <i>Joey Crawford >>
That's exactly who I was thinking of.
Throwing out Duncan for laughing?
Tossing Drexler out of a playoff game because he looked at Joey wrong?
It's gotta be him.
PS - This story has legs!
Link
<< <i>The NBA issued a brief statement Friday: “We have been asked by the FBI, with whom we are working closely, not to comment on this matter at this time.”
The probe, which began recently, also involves allegations that the referee had connections to organized crime associates. Other arrests are expected, the official said. >>
<< <i>PS - This story has legs! >>
See what I meen Stown!
<< <i>some people are just bad gamblers. and they blame it on the bookies. sports is the only gambling that you pick the game, the team, the pointspread (give or receive) every game i lost or won i picked the game the bookie didn't have an opinion either way >>
And you're gonna predict that game changing fumble, that game changing error, and those other little game changing events which over the long-run have clearly shown the favorites/dogs to come out 50/50 - but ya gotta pay the juice and that juice will eat alive any size bankroll - everytime - no exceptions. Nobody beats the books through handicapping - nobody - it is impossible and the facts are crystal clear on this.
Although I have kept an open mind about Boo's point about possibly beating the books through arbitrage type mathematical positioning on the internet - I just haven't seen yet whereby a bettor can get a big enough edge to overcome even say 5% juice, and most juice is usually around 10%.
<< <i>Although I have kept an open mind about Boo's point about possibly beating the books through arbitrage type mathematical positioning on the internet - I just haven't seen yet whereby a bettor can get a big enough edge to overcome even say 5% juice, and most juice is usually around 10%. >>
Are you talking about middling games?
I know a guy that only middles but busts his hump to find the games. Your losses are minimal but when it hits, it hits
randy
<< <i>And you're gonna predict that game changing fumble, that game changing error, and those other little game changing events which over the long-run have clearly shown the favorites/dogs to come out 50/50 - but ya gotta pay the juice and that juice will eat alive any size bankroll - everytime - no exceptions. Nobody beats the books through handicapping - nobody - it is impossible and the facts are crystal clear on this. >>
Must this spiel be part of every gambling-related thread? Give it a rest, everyone knows you went bust and don't gamble any more.
<< <i>
<< <i>And you're gonna predict that game changing fumble, that game changing error, and those other little game changing events which over the long-run have clearly shown the favorites/dogs to come out 50/50 - but ya gotta pay the juice and that juice will eat alive any size bankroll - everytime - no exceptions. Nobody beats the books through handicapping - nobody - it is impossible and the facts are crystal clear on this. >>
Must this spiel be part of every gambling-related thread? Give it a rest, everyone knows you went bust and don't gamble any more.
<<< Give it a rest >>>
Nope. If it's a gambling related thread, I'm chiming in with my opinion about the topic - get used to it. There are new posters and lurkers here all the time who could always use some good guidance about gambling. Then they can make their own decision. I do it for them, not you.
<< <i>
<< <i>Although I have kept an open mind about Boo's point about possibly beating the books through arbitrage type mathematical positioning on the internet - I just haven't seen yet whereby a bettor can get a big enough edge to overcome even say 5% juice, and most juice is usually around 10%. >>
Are you talking about middling games?
I know a guy that only middles but busts his hump to find the games. Your losses are minimal but when it hits, it hits
<<< Are you talking about middling games? >>>
Kinda. Boo and I discussed this about 6 months or a year ago here. Boo states it can work against the books, but I did the math and didn't see how it could possibly work, but I respect Boo's opinion. If Boo looks at this thread, then perhaps he can explain the "system" if he feels like it - it's his "theory" not mine.
If it works then great - I don't like bookies and would like every gambler to beat them. Unfortunately it's always the other way around.
<< <i>Nope. If it's a gambling related thread, I'm chiming in with my opinion about the topic - get used to it. There are new posters and lurkers here all the time who could always use some good guidance about gambling. Then they can make their own decision. I do it for them, not you. >>
Whatever. The bottom line is that not everyone who every gambled - lost all of their money, felt guilt, whined about it, or felt the need to sermonize to others. Many people who gamble do it occasionally and with money they can afford then don't have losers remorse and guilt when they've spent some of their entertainment dollars.
<< <i>Then they can make their own decision. I do it for them, not you. >>
>>
If you have ever influenced one person on this board not to bet I'll be amazed. Why not just start a dedicated thread? YOU CAN'T OVERCOME THE BOOKIES 10% ADVANTAGE. YOU CAN'T BEAT A POKER RAKE.
<< <i>
<< <i>Nope. If it's a gambling related thread, I'm chiming in with my opinion about the topic - get used to it. There are new posters and lurkers here all the time who could always use some good guidance about gambling. Then they can make their own decision. I do it for them, not you. >>
Whatever. The bottom line is that not everyone who every gambled - lost all of their money, felt guilt, whined about it, or felt the need to sermonize to others. Many people who gamble do it occasionally and with money they can afford then don't have losers remorse and guilt when they've spent some of their entertainment dollars.
You're right, not "everyone" but it is definitely far too many who have lost all of their money.
<< <i>Then they can make their own decision. I do it for them, not you. >>
>>
If you have ever influenced one person on this board not to bet I'll be amazed. Why not just start a dedicated thread? YOU CAN'T OVERCOME THE BOOKIES 10% ADVANTAGE. YOU CAN'T BEAT A POKER RAKE.
Well if I haven't influenced one person on this board yet, then I'll have to try harder. Thanks for the encouragement.
I've been cured, hallelujah!
<< <i>After reading Steve's post, I no longer have the urge to call "The Man".
I've been cured, hallelujah!
Amen Brother.
This I know for sure, I don't have to worry no more about coming up with that Tuesday payment to Bruno the local bookie, or seeing Calvin Ayre from Bodog on his 150 foot yacht compliments of some of my money. They ain't getting any more from me! Ha!
did you play heavy or was it just a little here and a little there.
<< <i>just asking a question and please take it as that.
did you play heavy or was it just a little here and a little there. >>
Doesn't matter - gambling "a little here and a little there" always and I do mean always adds up to playing heavy. Perhaps a newbie gambler hasn't lost much yet, but if anyone who has gambled for a number of years honestly adds up on paper what they have lost, they most likely won't like what they see.
Don't consider yourself burned yet from gambling?... then keep gambling and it is guaranteed one day you will get burned by gambling...just a question of when and how much. I've known thousands of gamblers and haven't seen an exception yet.
Keep in mind it's not just the lost money, it's the lost time say spending 20 or more hours a week playing the sucker's game of online poker, when you could have been doing other things to improve your life and or paying better attention to yourself and your family and friends. Lots of divorces out there caused by gambling.
Andy Beyer wrote this in his book but I had heard this before his book came out. (Paraphrase) "An oldtime gambler stated that if he would have spent time studying law, rather than studying the horse racing form, perhaps he could have been a Supreme Court Justice." For sure the old man would have accomplished more out of his life if he would have saved his money and time spent gambling. Gambling truly is a pathetic waste of money, time and life.
Me? I'd now rather spend my money and time on the great hobby of collecting baseball cards and other things. But hey, it's obvious you ain't gonna listen to me now but 10 or 20 years from you'll look back and say "That SOB stevek was right - I shoulda listened." Amen.
most people don't have the money to gamble or the knowledge and as i said in a previous post some people are just bad at it.
not everyone can do real estate, can run a business, play professional sports. but i know very few people that don't think they can't pick games.those are the ones who lose money because they are trying to hit the big score using household money or credit cards.
i understand you did a lot of research and know what your talking about, but their is a difference between a gambler and someone who gambles
Why the negativity? If you don't care for Steve's posts, don't read them, simple as that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>i have been at it for 20 years. i very seldom watch games i bet on, it is like sending cards to psa. once i make that choice (picking a game or sending in a card) it's out of my hands. so why sweat 3 hours watching a game or checking your submission 12 times a day over something you can't control. i never bet on my team (miami fl.) or against them because then it becomes unenjoyable. if i win i don't jump up and down and if i lose i don't cry because its just the cost of playing
most people don't have the money to gamble or the knowledge and as i said in a previous post some people are just bad at it.
not everyone can do real estate, can run a business, play professional sports. but i know very few people that don't think they can't pick games.those are the ones who lose money because they are trying to hit the big score using household money or credit cards.
i understand you did a lot of research and know what your talking about, but their is a difference between a gambler and someone who gambles >>
You've made some good comments here, especially the "warning" about using household money and credit cards.
<< <i>
<< <i>PS - This story has legs! >>
See what I meen Stown!
and so did this thread!