作者: Alfred (Keine Ahnung) 看板: NBA
標題: Re: [專欄] 不能說的秘密？十大爭議哨音事件簿！
時間: Sat Jun 2 02:40:40 2012
※ 引述《streetball (三個奇蹟可以卡住你的馬)》之銘言：
底下我會針對Tim Donaghy的部分提供我所知道的資訊，
因為對聯盟的信心問題應該是所有球迷都關心的事情，
這並不只是特定某隊球迷的事情，
而討論這件事的出發點也不應該只是為了捍衛特定比賽結果或特定球隊。
但我覺得你的文章實在是欠缺邏輯，為酸而酸。
你一方面自己拼命強調Tim Donaghy講的話不可信，
另一方面卻又引用他的話當作打星號的基礎，還要扯到特定球迷身上，
（只是一行請求資料來源的推文也能酸成這樣，不知道跟你是有什麼深仇大恨）
這樣也行的話，話就都給你說就好了。
我不知道為什麼要特別指定馬刺迷得在沒有證據的情況下替自己支持的球隊打星號，
事實上，同樣的命題可以套到任何一隊的球迷身上，
這不只是在總冠軍賽而已，
例如說，同樣跟Tim Donaghy有關，
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/sports/basketball/24play.html?_r=1
在2007年2月9日公牛對勇士的比賽裡，
他在比賽的關鍵時刻以身體動作「提醒」了勇士球員讓他避免了防守三秒的違例。
若此事屬實，難道不算操縱比賽嗎？當然是。
The Bulls-Warriors game of Feb. 9, played at Golden State and broadcast on
ESPN, was tied, 112-112, with 23 seconds remaining. While a Bulls guard
dribbled between midcourt and the 3-point shot line — clearly working the
clock down for an attempt at a final shot — Warriors center Andris Biedrens
stood in the lane without guarding anyone for about seven seconds, which is
grounds for a defensive three-seconds violation.
Donaghy, stationed behind Biedrens on the baseline, clearly stepped forward
and tapped Biedrens on the waist with 16 seconds left. Biedrens, by then at
the edge of the lane, then immediately moved clear of the paint, and play
continued.
The penalty for defensive three seconds is the assessment of a technical foul
and retention of the ball. Golden State could have faced a 3- or 4-point
deficit before getting the ball back.
Instead, the Bulls had a shot blocked with six seconds left, and Golden State
missed a half-court heave to leave the score tied as regulation time ran out.
The Warriors won in overtime, 123-121. According to several gambling Web
sites, the odds opened with the Warriors favored by a point and a half.
到底NBA比賽是不是被操縱，有好幾個層面可以談，
在分析清楚以前就「承認」任何事情都是武斷且不聰明的做法。
首先，假設有操縱好了，是個別裁判因為簽賭而操縱，還是聯盟直接授意？
若是聯盟直接授意的（如同Tim Donaghy事後不斷試圖暗示的那樣），
那麼結論很可能只能是「勸大家不要再看NBA了」，
畢竟這全是一場戲，任何成就或冠軍在體育競技上的意義都很小。
不過到目前為止除了Tim Donaghy的片面指控外，
有任何相關證據顯示如此嗎？
陰謀論很容易吸引大家的注意，但往往經不起客觀檢視。
類似的例子，例如LeBron那驚人的低犯規率到底是不是黑哨的結果？
http://hoopspeak.com/2012/05/enough-about-lebron-and-his-fouls/
一個溜馬迷兩年前用專業統計檢定告訴你的inconvenient fact：
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=899
或者這兩天炒得火熱的選秀樂透陰謀論：
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/31/an-nba-draft-lottery-conspiracy-it-didnt-seem-that-way/
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/hruby-tuesday/201205/conspiracy-theory-david-stern-michael-phelps-patrick-ewing-michael-jordan
We all believe in something. Because the alternative is too much to bear.
Because the only thing worse than the hidden hand is no hand at all.
---------------文章太長分隔線--------------------------------
其次，若是問題在於個別裁判在個別場次因為簽賭而操縱，
那麼討論Tim Donaghy的case就很有意義了，
畢竟他是到目前為止惟一一個因被定罪入監的NBA裁判。
這裡我們可以進一步借用Tim Donaghy的主張來討論到底這種事情有沒有辦法客觀判斷，
http://nbascandal.blogspot.com/2011/02/donaghy-on-not-making-incorrect-calls.html
Tim Donaghy從頭到尾都不承認他「有意識的」操縱比賽，
不過有一些關鍵的主張：
Donaghy admitted to authorities that he "compromised his objectivity as a
referee because of his personal financial interest in the outcome of NBA
games, and that this personal interest might have subconsciously affected his
on-court performance.''
Donaghy has repeatedly said, in slightly different ways, that he did not make
“incorrect calls” to advance his betting propositions, leaving wide open
the possibility that he simply made strategic “correct” calls (perhaps on
typically oft-ignored violations) to produce successful outcomes with regard
to his bets.
然而從下面這段他跟ESPN的訪談裡你可以很清楚的看到他的矛盾：
MS: But, if you had a bias against a player - and you said you did against
Rasheed Wallace - didn’t you make calls to affect the point spread?
TD: Sure.
MS: So, how is that not fixing a game?
TD: I think, um, those calls are justified. That’s where the subjectivity
comes in.
MS: Why is it justified to make calls at an unusual rate against a particular
player? How’s that not fixing the outcome?
TD: If the calls are warranted, it’s not fixing the outcome.
MS: But “warranted” by what, personal bias?
TD: Personal bias, um, obviously comes into effect, but the calls have to be
justified to be made.
MS: Personal bias compounded by also betting against Rasheed Wallace could
lead to manipulation of a game, correct?
TD: Sure it could.
MS: So, how is that not fixing it?
TD: It’s not fixing it because I don’t think that I’m making calls up
against him.
所以他很清楚的說「personal bias」造成的影響「不算操縱比賽」。
那麼就算Tommy Nunez確實討厭沙佛而喜歡San Antonio這個城市，
依Tim Donaghy自己的邏輯來說，那又怎樣？
只要他們的判決沒錯，It's not fixing.
當然我不同意這種鬼扯邏輯，
我只是要說Tim Donaghy講話根本不可信，
更糟的是，就算他說的話並非全都是謊話，
我們根本沒有任何資訊可以判斷他講的話裡到底什麼是真的，什麼是假的，
如果Tommy Nunez或其他人有除了personal bias以外更有力的操縱比賽的理由，
例如他們也有下注等等，他會在書裡放過嗎？我們不知道。
在別的場合裡他又解釋了為何他不吹incorrect call的原因：
Obviously, when you’re doing something wrong like I was, you don’t want to
get caught and, uh, going out onto the floor and making calls in games that
are wrong to influence a point spread would have certainly thrown up some red
flags very quickly that would probably, uh, enable me to get caught a lot
quicker than what I did.
或是
I’m going to be detected if I’m making incorrect calls on a continuous
basis to affect these games so that the bets would cover. I mean, red flags
would be thrown up all over the place and the NBA or the FBI certainly would
have detected this well before it was detected.
但他在Personal Foul一書裡強調：
Because (NBA) referees are able to make calls or ignore violations with
impunity, they can hide a whole lot of love or hate for players or a team
with their calls.
換言之，Tim Donaghy的邏輯可以簡化為：
1.NBA裁判的判決有主觀成份
2.裁判可以利用主觀的模糊空間隱藏他們對比賽走向的操作
3.但是，只要那些判決本身不是明顯「錯」的，就
a.不會被抓（對他來說這是最重要的）
b.不算操縱（fix）比賽（這可以看成他在嘴硬脫罪）
我想大部分人除了3.b以外其他各點都會同意，
甚至少部分人會連3.b都會承認漏哨無論有意無意都是比賽的一部分。
（Well，如果你真心喜歡所謂的physical game的話，不漏哨根本無法打完一場比賽）
但是反過來說，2.的部分反而是最大的問題，
「判決無法避免主觀判斷」跟
「裁判刻意利用這個空間有目的且有方向性的操縱比賽」
間並不能立刻劃上等號。
每個人家裡都有菜刀跟每個人都會拿刀捅人是兩回事。
而Tim Donaghy並沒有提供任何可以證明後者的證據，
除了他自己的下注行為以外。
所以我們最終還是回到原點，
除了Tim Donaghy的片面陳詞以外，
我們有任何證據能夠判斷裁判到底有沒有因為個人喜好而操縱比賽嗎？
我們有任何證據能夠判斷聯盟有沒有指揮裁判favor特定球星與球隊嗎？
信者恆信，就這樣。
: Tim Donaghy跟馬刺迷一樣都是很精明的，沒抓到的都沒承認，
: 所以他並沒有因為簽賭他吹判的比賽而獲罪，而是避重就輕認了＂內線詐欺＂
: 提供裁判對特定球隊的喜好讓組頭開讓分盤時有獲利的空間，藉此收取報酬。
: 至於他有沒有操控比分，很遺憾，雖然統計涉案幾年他所吹判比賽的分差與
: 賭城賭盤的分差的差異性，只有千分之一的可能性這樣的差異是自然發生的，
: 可是沒有辦法證實那些吹判是為了操縱比賽。
: 至於所謂他承認的比賽，應該是指他作證時特別提到的兩場球：
: Games in Indictment
: Two specific dates are mentioned in the indictment as days when Tim Donaghy
: called his co-conspirators with information on "who to bet on."
: One is Dec. 13. That night, Donaghy officiated a Boston-Philadelphia game
: in Philadelphia. The second is Dec. 26. That night, Donaghy worked a
: Memphis-Washington game in Washington D.C.
: In the Dec. 13 game, Boston was a 3鎅-point favorite and won by 20.
: A total of 49 fouls were called (25 against the visiting 76ers) and
: 68 free throws were shot (34 by each team). The over-under line was
: 194 points; 182 points were scored (Boston won 101-81).
: In the Dec. 26 game, Washington was an 8-point favorite and won by 15.
: A total of 48 fouls were called (25 against the host Wizards) and 61
: free throws were shot. The over-under line was 207 points; 217 points
: were scored (Washington won 116-101).
: -- ESPN.com Court document Donaghy's 2006-07 game log
都是例行賽，而且並非賽季末段影響季後賽席次的比賽。
很明顯是因為他個人下注而非聯盟授意，
至少從這些對戰組合裡我們看不太出來聯盟有什麼需要特別操作的理由，
反而更因此而顯示出Tim Donaghy小心怕被抓的個性：
選擇不是目光焦點的比賽下手以免露出馬腳。
所以我們多了一個理由可以相信這種個別裁判下注的操縱，
不會發生在全國目光焦點的季後賽對決裡，風險太高。
: 至於馬刺太陽這場季後賽，Donaghy在他用來籌措律師費的書中把責任全推給了
: 另一位裁判，書裡是這樣寫的：
: My favorite Tommy Nunez story is from the 2007 playoffs when the
: San Antonio Spurs were able to get past the Phoenix Suns in the second round.
: Of course, what many fans didn't know was that Phoenix had someone working
: against them behind the scenes. Nunez was the group supervisor for that
: playoff series, and he definitely had a rooting interest.Nunez loved the
: Hispanic community in San Antonio and had a lot of friends there. He had been
: a referee for 30 years and loved being on the road; in fact, he said
: that the whole reason he had become a group supervisor was to keep getting
: out of the house. So Nunez wanted to come back to San Antonio for the
: conference finals. Plus, he, like many other referees, disliked Suns owner
: Robert Sarver for the way he treated officials. Both of these things came
: into play when he prepared the referees for the games in the staff meetings.
: I remember laughing with him and saying, "You would love to keep coming back
: here." He was pointing out everything that Phoenix was able to get away with
: and never once told us to look for anything in regard to San Antonio.
: Nunez should have a championship ring on his finger.
: 不過我很難相信為了脫罪什麼話都說的出口的罪犯說辭，何況這個罪犯還當過NBA
: 裁判，不過他沒承認是沒錯啦，反正馬刺隊史不差這個星號。
事實上你並非「很難相信」，反而是選擇性的相信了他的說辭，
你相信他對Tommy Nunez的指控，相信這場比賽是被偏見操縱的，
你只是不相信他自己沒下手操縱這場比賽。
那麼我請問你，你選擇性相信的理由與事實基礎是什麼？
當年有看過比賽的人很多，每個人都有自己的想法，
兩隊球迷也都各自有各自的觀點，如果這你自己就認為有鬼，
那麼其實不必拉Tim Donaghy這種可疑的來源來背書，
相信你自己看比賽的判斷就可以了。
只是你有你的意見自由，別人有別人的意見自由。That's it.
關於Tim Donaghy種種說詞的可信度，
有興趣的人可以看這個網站，或Gaming the Games這本書：
http://www.seanpatrickgriffin.net/my-assessments-of-tim-donaghys-claims
http://www.seanpatrickgriffin.net/more-analyses-of-tim-donaghys-credibility
作者是前警官，現任Penn State大學組織犯罪的助理教授，
裡面有很多連結，內容很長，
但因為Tim Donaghy到現在還不斷的上各種媒體繼續鼓吹陰謀論，
所以如果任何人確實有心想知道他講的話底可不可信，
稍微花點時間看一下也是應該的。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 99.125.165.60
推 jack0602 :推一下 06/02 02:53
標題: Re: [專欄] 不能說的秘密？十大爭議哨音事件簿！
時間: Sat Jun 2 02:40:40 2012
※ 引述《streetball (三個奇蹟可以卡住你的馬)》之銘言：
底下我會針對Tim Donaghy的部分提供我所知道的資訊，
因為對聯盟的信心問題應該是所有球迷都關心的事情，
這並不只是特定某隊球迷的事情，
而討論這件事的出發點也不應該只是為了捍衛特定比賽結果或特定球隊。
但我覺得你的文章實在是欠缺邏輯，為酸而酸。
你一方面自己拼命強調Tim Donaghy講的話不可信，
另一方面卻又引用他的話當作打星號的基礎，還要扯到特定球迷身上，
（只是一行請求資料來源的推文也能酸成這樣，不知道跟你是有什麼深仇大恨）
這樣也行的話，話就都給你說就好了。
我不知道為什麼要特別指定馬刺迷得在沒有證據的情況下替自己支持的球隊打星號，
事實上，同樣的命題可以套到任何一隊的球迷身上，
這不只是在總冠軍賽而已，
例如說，同樣跟Tim Donaghy有關，
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/sports/basketball/24play.html?_r=1
在2007年2月9日公牛對勇士的比賽裡，
他在比賽的關鍵時刻以身體動作「提醒」了勇士球員讓他避免了防守三秒的違例。
若此事屬實，難道不算操縱比賽嗎？當然是。
The Bulls-Warriors game of Feb. 9, played at Golden State and broadcast on
ESPN, was tied, 112-112, with 23 seconds remaining. While a Bulls guard
dribbled between midcourt and the 3-point shot line — clearly working the
clock down for an attempt at a final shot — Warriors center Andris Biedrens
stood in the lane without guarding anyone for about seven seconds, which is
grounds for a defensive three-seconds violation.
Donaghy, stationed behind Biedrens on the baseline, clearly stepped forward
and tapped Biedrens on the waist with 16 seconds left. Biedrens, by then at
the edge of the lane, then immediately moved clear of the paint, and play
continued.
The penalty for defensive three seconds is the assessment of a technical foul
and retention of the ball. Golden State could have faced a 3- or 4-point
deficit before getting the ball back.
Instead, the Bulls had a shot blocked with six seconds left, and Golden State
missed a half-court heave to leave the score tied as regulation time ran out.
The Warriors won in overtime, 123-121. According to several gambling Web
sites, the odds opened with the Warriors favored by a point and a half.
到底NBA比賽是不是被操縱，有好幾個層面可以談，
在分析清楚以前就「承認」任何事情都是武斷且不聰明的做法。
首先，假設有操縱好了，是個別裁判因為簽賭而操縱，還是聯盟直接授意？
若是聯盟直接授意的（如同Tim Donaghy事後不斷試圖暗示的那樣），
那麼結論很可能只能是「勸大家不要再看NBA了」，
畢竟這全是一場戲，任何成就或冠軍在體育競技上的意義都很小。
不過到目前為止除了Tim Donaghy的片面指控外，
有任何相關證據顯示如此嗎？
陰謀論很容易吸引大家的注意，但往往經不起客觀檢視。
類似的例子，例如LeBron那驚人的低犯規率到底是不是黑哨的結果？
http://hoopspeak.com/2012/05/enough-about-lebron-and-his-fouls/
一個溜馬迷兩年前用專業統計檢定告訴你的inconvenient fact：
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=899
或者這兩天炒得火熱的選秀樂透陰謀論：
http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/31/an-nba-draft-lottery-conspiracy-it-didnt-seem-that-way/
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/hruby-tuesday/201205/conspiracy-theory-david-stern-michael-phelps-patrick-ewing-michael-jordan
We all believe in something. Because the alternative is too much to bear.
Because the only thing worse than the hidden hand is no hand at all.
---------------文章太長分隔線--------------------------------
其次，若是問題在於個別裁判在個別場次因為簽賭而操縱，
那麼討論Tim Donaghy的case就很有意義了，
畢竟他是到目前為止惟一一個因被定罪入監的NBA裁判。
這裡我們可以進一步借用Tim Donaghy的主張來討論到底這種事情有沒有辦法客觀判斷，
http://nbascandal.blogspot.com/2011/02/donaghy-on-not-making-incorrect-calls.html
Tim Donaghy從頭到尾都不承認他「有意識的」操縱比賽，
不過有一些關鍵的主張：
Donaghy admitted to authorities that he "compromised his objectivity as a
referee because of his personal financial interest in the outcome of NBA
games, and that this personal interest might have subconsciously affected his
on-court performance.''
Donaghy has repeatedly said, in slightly different ways, that he did not make
“incorrect calls” to advance his betting propositions, leaving wide open
the possibility that he simply made strategic “correct” calls (perhaps on
typically oft-ignored violations) to produce successful outcomes with regard
to his bets.
然而從下面這段他跟ESPN的訪談裡你可以很清楚的看到他的矛盾：
MS: But, if you had a bias against a player - and you said you did against
Rasheed Wallace - didn’t you make calls to affect the point spread?
TD: Sure.
MS: So, how is that not fixing a game?
TD: I think, um, those calls are justified. That’s where the subjectivity
comes in.
MS: Why is it justified to make calls at an unusual rate against a particular
player? How’s that not fixing the outcome?
TD: If the calls are warranted, it’s not fixing the outcome.
MS: But “warranted” by what, personal bias?
TD: Personal bias, um, obviously comes into effect, but the calls have to be
justified to be made.
MS: Personal bias compounded by also betting against Rasheed Wallace could
lead to manipulation of a game, correct?
TD: Sure it could.
MS: So, how is that not fixing it?
TD: It’s not fixing it because I don’t think that I’m making calls up
against him.
所以他很清楚的說「personal bias」造成的影響「不算操縱比賽」。
那麼就算Tommy Nunez確實討厭沙佛而喜歡San Antonio這個城市，
依Tim Donaghy自己的邏輯來說，那又怎樣？
只要他們的判決沒錯，It's not fixing.
當然我不同意這種鬼扯邏輯，
我只是要說Tim Donaghy講話根本不可信，
更糟的是，就算他說的話並非全都是謊話，
我們根本沒有任何資訊可以判斷他講的話裡到底什麼是真的，什麼是假的，
如果Tommy Nunez或其他人有除了personal bias以外更有力的操縱比賽的理由，
例如他們也有下注等等，他會在書裡放過嗎？我們不知道。
在別的場合裡他又解釋了為何他不吹incorrect call的原因：
Obviously, when you’re doing something wrong like I was, you don’t want to
get caught and, uh, going out onto the floor and making calls in games that
are wrong to influence a point spread would have certainly thrown up some red
flags very quickly that would probably, uh, enable me to get caught a lot
quicker than what I did.
或是
I’m going to be detected if I’m making incorrect calls on a continuous
basis to affect these games so that the bets would cover. I mean, red flags
would be thrown up all over the place and the NBA or the FBI certainly would
have detected this well before it was detected.
但他在Personal Foul一書裡強調：
Because (NBA) referees are able to make calls or ignore violations with
impunity, they can hide a whole lot of love or hate for players or a team
with their calls.
換言之，Tim Donaghy的邏輯可以簡化為：
1.NBA裁判的判決有主觀成份
2.裁判可以利用主觀的模糊空間隱藏他們對比賽走向的操作
3.但是，只要那些判決本身不是明顯「錯」的，就
a.不會被抓（對他來說這是最重要的）
b.不算操縱（fix）比賽（這可以看成他在嘴硬脫罪）
我想大部分人除了3.b以外其他各點都會同意，
甚至少部分人會連3.b都會承認漏哨無論有意無意都是比賽的一部分。
（Well，如果你真心喜歡所謂的physical game的話，不漏哨根本無法打完一場比賽）
但是反過來說，2.的部分反而是最大的問題，
「判決無法避免主觀判斷」跟
「裁判刻意利用這個空間有目的且有方向性的操縱比賽」
間並不能立刻劃上等號。
每個人家裡都有菜刀跟每個人都會拿刀捅人是兩回事。
而Tim Donaghy並沒有提供任何可以證明後者的證據，
除了他自己的下注行為以外。
所以我們最終還是回到原點，
除了Tim Donaghy的片面陳詞以外，
我們有任何證據能夠判斷裁判到底有沒有因為個人喜好而操縱比賽嗎？
我們有任何證據能夠判斷聯盟有沒有指揮裁判favor特定球星與球隊嗎？
信者恆信，就這樣。
: Tim Donaghy跟馬刺迷一樣都是很精明的，沒抓到的都沒承認，
: 所以他並沒有因為簽賭他吹判的比賽而獲罪，而是避重就輕認了＂內線詐欺＂
: 提供裁判對特定球隊的喜好讓組頭開讓分盤時有獲利的空間，藉此收取報酬。
: 至於他有沒有操控比分，很遺憾，雖然統計涉案幾年他所吹判比賽的分差與
: 賭城賭盤的分差的差異性，只有千分之一的可能性這樣的差異是自然發生的，
: 可是沒有辦法證實那些吹判是為了操縱比賽。
: 至於所謂他承認的比賽，應該是指他作證時特別提到的兩場球：
: Games in Indictment
: Two specific dates are mentioned in the indictment as days when Tim Donaghy
: called his co-conspirators with information on "who to bet on."
: One is Dec. 13. That night, Donaghy officiated a Boston-Philadelphia game
: in Philadelphia. The second is Dec. 26. That night, Donaghy worked a
: Memphis-Washington game in Washington D.C.
: In the Dec. 13 game, Boston was a 3鎅-point favorite and won by 20.
: A total of 49 fouls were called (25 against the visiting 76ers) and
: 68 free throws were shot (34 by each team). The over-under line was
: 194 points; 182 points were scored (Boston won 101-81).
: In the Dec. 26 game, Washington was an 8-point favorite and won by 15.
: A total of 48 fouls were called (25 against the host Wizards) and 61
: free throws were shot. The over-under line was 207 points; 217 points
: were scored (Washington won 116-101).
: -- ESPN.com Court document Donaghy's 2006-07 game log
都是例行賽，而且並非賽季末段影響季後賽席次的比賽。
很明顯是因為他個人下注而非聯盟授意，
至少從這些對戰組合裡我們看不太出來聯盟有什麼需要特別操作的理由，
反而更因此而顯示出Tim Donaghy小心怕被抓的個性：
選擇不是目光焦點的比賽下手以免露出馬腳。
所以我們多了一個理由可以相信這種個別裁判下注的操縱，
不會發生在全國目光焦點的季後賽對決裡，風險太高。
: 至於馬刺太陽這場季後賽，Donaghy在他用來籌措律師費的書中把責任全推給了
: 另一位裁判，書裡是這樣寫的：
: My favorite Tommy Nunez story is from the 2007 playoffs when the
: San Antonio Spurs were able to get past the Phoenix Suns in the second round.
: Of course, what many fans didn't know was that Phoenix had someone working
: against them behind the scenes. Nunez was the group supervisor for that
: playoff series, and he definitely had a rooting interest.Nunez loved the
: Hispanic community in San Antonio and had a lot of friends there. He had been
: a referee for 30 years and loved being on the road; in fact, he said
: that the whole reason he had become a group supervisor was to keep getting
: out of the house. So Nunez wanted to come back to San Antonio for the
: conference finals. Plus, he, like many other referees, disliked Suns owner
: Robert Sarver for the way he treated officials. Both of these things came
: into play when he prepared the referees for the games in the staff meetings.
: I remember laughing with him and saying, "You would love to keep coming back
: here." He was pointing out everything that Phoenix was able to get away with
: and never once told us to look for anything in regard to San Antonio.
: Nunez should have a championship ring on his finger.
: 不過我很難相信為了脫罪什麼話都說的出口的罪犯說辭，何況這個罪犯還當過NBA
: 裁判，不過他沒承認是沒錯啦，反正馬刺隊史不差這個星號。
事實上你並非「很難相信」，反而是選擇性的相信了他的說辭，
你相信他對Tommy Nunez的指控，相信這場比賽是被偏見操縱的，
你只是不相信他自己沒下手操縱這場比賽。
那麼我請問你，你選擇性相信的理由與事實基礎是什麼？
當年有看過比賽的人很多，每個人都有自己的想法，
兩隊球迷也都各自有各自的觀點，如果這你自己就認為有鬼，
那麼其實不必拉Tim Donaghy這種可疑的來源來背書，
相信你自己看比賽的判斷就可以了。
只是你有你的意見自由，別人有別人的意見自由。That's it.
關於Tim Donaghy種種說詞的可信度，
有興趣的人可以看這個網站，或Gaming the Games這本書：
http://www.seanpatrickgriffin.net/my-assessments-of-tim-donaghys-claims
http://www.seanpatrickgriffin.net/more-analyses-of-tim-donaghys-credibility
作者是前警官，現任Penn State大學組織犯罪的助理教授，
裡面有很多連結，內容很長，
但因為Tim Donaghy到現在還不斷的上各種媒體繼續鼓吹陰謀論，
所以如果任何人確實有心想知道他講的話底可不可信，
稍微花點時間看一下也是應該的。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 99.125.165.60
推 jack0602 :推一下 06/02 02:53
全站熱搜
留言列表
