June 13, 2008
LOS ANGELES - Back in the early '60s, in a rustic Mississippi town, an ambitious young lawyer decided to jump start his political career by running for mayor. His opponent was an adored, gentle grandfather of six who'd held that office for almost four decades without a single controversy. All his spare time was spent working his farm.
The incumbent appeared undefeatable.
"How can we possibly win?" the virtual nobody asked his campaign manager.
"We're going to accuse the mayor (and I paraphrase) of having sexual relations with a pig," he strategized.
Stunned, the raw contender exclaimed, "That's preposterous! Nobody will ever believe that."
"We don't care if they believe it; we just want him to deny it."
Three days ago excommunicated referee Tim Donaghy wittingly contaminated the atmosphere surrounding The Finals - specifically Game 3 between the Lakers and Celtics - when, essentially, he accused NBA commissioner David Stern and everyone who answers to him of influencing a 2002 Lakers-Kings playoff game in L.A.'s favor.
Legal papers filed by Donaghy (awaiting July 14 sentencing on a guilty plea to felony charges of taking cash payoffs from gamblers and betting on games himself) in U.S. District Court, Brooklyn, "indicted" the league for scheming to extend the series to its seven-game limit, thus give its marquee team the opportunity to reach the postseason, prime time, promised land where visions of sugar plum NBC ratings were guaranteed by the presence of the defending champions featuring Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant.
Considering the magnitude of such a scandalous charge, issuing an outraged "no comment" would have been inadequate. Left no squirming room, Stern was forced to deny the implication, branding it "baseless."
That Mississippi campaign manager was no fool.
Without providing a shred of corroborating evidence, Donaghy has amassed a mountain of conspiracy theorists. It's amazing how many hypothetically reasonable people want proof from Stern that Donaghy is lying (how does one actually go about disproving something that never happened?) instead of demanding it be the way around.
