John Walters

Spygate? Refgate? Listen, I'm still trying to bend my mind around the "tuck rule." I mean, has that even been applied once since 2002? I'm just askin', Senor Bundchen.

The question is whether Spygate, the controversy surrounding the New England Patriots' confirmed illegal taping of opponents' defensive signals, is more sinister than Refgate, the mess concerning NBA referees' allegedly conspiring to fix Game 6 of the 2002 NBA Western Conference finals.

Let's examine the evidence first, and let's keep it simple enough so that even low-level employees taping fat guys can understand it.

First, we have an incident in the NFL in which a team was accused of cheating. Said chicanery was undertaken with -- and I've always wanted to say this -- malice aforethought, which goes to show criminal intent. At last, those 1,477 episodes of Law & Order that I've watched bear fruit.

Second, such criminal (at least in the NFL's eyes) malfeasance was undertaken with full consent of, and even via direct command by, the head coach. This is not alleged. This has been proven and that coach, Bill Belichick, confessed as much in an interview with CBS reporter Armen Keteyian last month. The misdeeds were premeditated, sophisticated and clandestine, which goes to show that those performing them knew they were in the wrong.

The point is this: the person, Belichick, charged with preparing his team to play football knowingly and willfully subverted the rules.

Everything else is immaterial. Extraneous. That the team was the New England Patriots, that they won three Super Bowls while this was taking place, is intriguing. But it is irrelevant.

On to Refgate. (Later I will tackle the lesser-known tale of Syracuse having to vacate its 1990 NCAA lacrosse championship because its star player was ineligible, a little controversy I like to refer to as Gary Gaitgate.)

The difference between Spygate and Regate
First and foremost, unlike Spygate, we have only allegations at this point, not proof. That is a huge difference.

But let us assume, just for a moment, that former NBA referee Tim Donaghy's assertions are grounded in truth. Prior to last week's revelations, the assumption was that Donaghy -- and perhaps a few others -- had placed bets on games that they had refereed. The next logical step would lead to those refs manipulating games so that the final score favored whatever side of the spread on which they bet.

Such actions contaminate the integrity of a game or some games, but not the NBA itself. At that stage, Refgate is less sinister than Spygate simply because it is the criminal acts of a few individuals, the referees, as opposed to that of a team.

However, if Donaghy's allegations are valid, that the league itself conspired to extend that Kings-Lakers series to a Game 7, then we've got that kind of trouble that rhymes with T and that stands for "tarnished."

But let's back up for a second. I attended the press conference before Game 4 at Staples Center in which NBA commissioner David Stern discussed the allegations. If Donaghy is correct, are we to presume that the league ordered the referees to fix Game 6 but that Stern, the commissioner, was unaware of these machinations? That one of Stern's lieutenants gave the order without Stern's knowledge?

Does anyone reading this question David Stern's integrity? I don't.

As far as the press conference that my colleague is waiting for, the one in which Stern would reveal how "Dick Bavetta's explanation checks out," how would that go?
           
Stern: "Dick, did you manipulate calls in Game 6 of the 2002 Western conference finals?"

Bavetta: "No."

Stern: "Okay, but how exactly did you not manipulate it?"

Bavetta: "I'm not sure I understand."

Stern: "How did you not do what it is you are accused of doing?"

And suddenly I feel as if I'm reading dialogue from Catch-22. Bavetta is one of the league's most respected (if not the most respected) officials. And he's well-liked. You may recall him racing Charles Barkley at the 2007 NBA All-Star weekend. Now that I believe was fixed, but then Barkley is known for falling hundreds of thousands of dollars in arrears (who has bigger arrears than Sir Charles?) to the casinos.

MORE FROM NBA

NBA Section Front

Celtics thump Magic for ninth straight win Marbury, Knicks talk — but future 'not resolved' T-Wolves' Brewer out for season with knee injury Expert: A road map to what awaits for Class of 2010 Rumors: Prince frustrated with new role in Detroit Live updates on Monday's NBA games Latest odds Latest injuries Game matchups SCORES, STATS, STANDINGS, SCHEDULES NBA Section Front   Add NBA headlines to your news reader: