Stern: Rules relating to referee gambling "outdated&quo

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sec ... id=3079150

NEW YORK -- David Stern acknowledged Thursday that more than half of his 56 referees had violated NBA policies about casino gambling, but said none will be punished because he felt the rules were outdated.

Instead, Stern said he is altering the policies, leaning toward allowing referees to gamble in casinos during the offseason -- except for betting in sports books.

The league's strict gambling policies toward referees became public after the Tim Donaghy scandal. The NBA currently prevents its officials from entering the gaming area of a casino, or doing any betting at all except for going to race tracks during the offseason.

But Stern admitted he did a poor job of enforcing the policies, and with views toward gambling changing, decided he wouldn't "penalize people for behavior that I'm about to change."

What did almost EVERYONE, sans Spurs fans, say about the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw in the playoffs? Everybody agreed that the rule was "outdated". Even the talking heads on ESPN agreed. Now, some said the suspensions had to be enforced no matter how outdated the rule is, because rules are rules. As a Suns fan, I was too deeply hurt to agree with this logic, but I could understand it regardless.

This reveals Stern's double standard. An unprecedented scandal occurs in which a referee is caught fixing games. Then it's revealed that half of the NBA's referees are explicitly violating the league's no-gambling policy. Instead of calling for reform amongst officials, Stern goes out of his way to allow referees to do light gambling. But when reviewing the bench-clearing rule, Stern didn't look at it with an objective eye; he didn't see that Stoudemire and Diaw were clearly rushing to the HELP of their teammate, not to start an altercation with the Spurs' players. He saw it as black and white, no room for interpretation.

Before these past playoffs, I would defend Stern from those who thought Stern was killing the league with his ticky-tack rules. But now, I honestly think his nonchalant behavior towards referees and gambling, along with his double standard in the way he treats referees and players is truly hurting the NBA. I don't care if it's harmless gambling...this rule PROMOTES gambling amongst league officials, and I for one find it unbelievable that a bigger deal isn't being made out of this.

I see where you're coming from, but I think the nature of the referee's gambling should be noted here. All of the NBA's officials were found to have broken the rules at some point, but not in the same way Tim Donaghy did. I'm not saying that excuses them from breaking the rules but gambling on poker or slot machines doesn't compromise the integrity of the game nor raise any questions about game fixing. It's not as though the league has suddenly revealed to be full of Donaghys and David Stern is turning a blind eye to it.

I believe the concerns about this are based in that Donaghy did what he did because of gambling debts, and if other refs were to acquire such debts they might be open to similar potential for corruption.

That's true, but even if Stern was to say the league will actively enforce rules against referees engaging in any kind of gambling then such a possibility would still be a concern. After all, white collar crime has a way of remaining discreet.

Yes, but it is not a valid argument to say "it shouldn't be illegal because people will do it anyway" is it? These rules were clearly put in place for a reason, you do not loosen the rules because every single referee was found to be in violation. You fire the worst offenders, make an example of them, and threaten the rest. They broke the rules they agreed to, that is grounds for dismissal.

You certainly don't loosen the rules just to accomodate those who broke them, but you might still look at the rule and question why you had it in the first place, whether there was any good reason to implement in the first place. If their gambling was restricted to casinos and unrelated to the NBA then what they were doing wasn't technically "illegal", though it certainly violated the policy set forth by the NBA. Still, the NBA has the right to review their own policy and decide it's unnecessary or in need of a change,

But since you brought it up, shouldn't that also apply to the situation Dro brought up in comparison? After all, as NBA players Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw agreed to abide by all the rules, including the automatic suspensions for players who leave the bench during an altercation. Should they have been afforded special consideration or the rules been changed because it was a marquee matchup in the Playoffs?

Should they have been afforded special consideration or the rules been changed because it was a marquee matchup in the Playoffs?

No. If the rules say do not leave the bench, do not leave the bench unless you are willing to face the consequences.

I'm a Suns fan, but irregardless, I can understand why the suspensions were handed down. But if Stern and Co. are going to be firm on one rule, they have to stand by ALL the rules, irregardless of whether it's a rule concerning players or referees. This blatant contradiction is absolutely unacceptable. The nerve of the Commissioner to call the rules "outdated" is what gets to me most, because that is precisely what everybody was saying about the suspensions.

I agree with Benji. Officials in violation should have been fired and Stern should have issued a public warning to the others. Instead, it appears as if he's coddling the referees while continuing the stifle the players at any given chance. Either be tough on everybody or be tough on nobody. I just can't believe more isn't being made of this.