In the past week, we were hit with another perfect example of why Pete Rose has yet to sniff Cooperstown. Depending on our allegiances, we sports fans will put up with just about anything. Michael Vick still has his supporters, as do Pacman Jones and Barry Bonds. But blindside the American public with a revelation that the playing field wasn’t level, and that we were fooled in the process? Different story, indeed. When we learn that we put stock into a competition where the outcome may have been unduly and unnecessarily influenced, we don’t take it too well. Once a shred of credibility is attached to a falsified outcome, conspiracy theories run amok. Whether it’s a fixed game or the JFK assassination, they are there, although most are simply too far-fetched, too over the top, or can be made to sound far too convenient. What fueled the fire of the problem, of course, is that doubt was created in the first place.

 At his recent press conference regarding Tim Donaghy, David Stern appeared as we’d never seen him before; a defendant painted into a corner on the witness stand, rather than the confident-some would say over confident-head of the NBA. Stern has been lauded often for his achievements as commissioner, though one has to wonder how difficult it must have been to take over a league that had already had the kick-start of a lifetime courtesy of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, who were entering their prime, and was about to add a soon-to-be-superstar named Michael Jordan in Stern’s first season.

 Critics of Stern would cite things such as a sometimes arrogant and condescending manner, (witness his interview with Dan Patrick on ESPN radio during the Suns-Spurs series, which, in a classic bit of irony, came roughly a week after Donaghy officiated game three), his staunch position that his officials were the most well-trained, best qualified, and most highly monitored in all of sports, and his tendency to sound as though he was lecturing us feeble-minded basketball fans. And those critics wouldn’t be too far off on any of these.

 Without a doubt, NBA basketball is the most difficult to officiate of all the major team sports. Nearly every call, from traveling to three seconds to almost every foul, is a judgment call, and being an NBA referee is an unenviable task indeed. However, Stern’s unconditional defense, or should I say outright praise, of his referees in the past has grated on many. Especially since the product on the floor has not measured up, in the opinion of the vast majority of fans. And when one takes into consideration his decisions regarding the situations of some of his officials in recent history, i.e., the cash-for-first-class-tickets and some bouts with tax evasion, his track record suddenly becomes very ordinary. I’m all for giving folks a second chance, but since Stern tried to convince us ad nauseum that his league’s standards were much higher, one has no choice but to come to the conclusion that Stern did not meet his own verbalized standards. On the credibility scoreboard, he needs a slump-buster.

 Stern said in his press conference, “I feel betrayed by what happened on behalf of the sport, regardless of how protective I’ve been.” Two observations come to mind. First, at least he admitted he’s been protective. We all knew it, and he’s now acknowledging it. That’s a start. Secondly, he is not the only one who feels betrayed. NBA fans do too. And when all is said and done, we are the ones who dictate the success of his league. With the finals ratings spiraling downward, Mr. Stern cannot afford to misstep on this one. Since some cynics will say, for example, that Mr. Stern is more of the problem rather than the solution, since it may come out and be verified that Donaghy had prior gambling issues that the league knew about, Stern is now in a zero tolerance position.

 Stern’s new ball didn’t work out very well. Neither did his own zero tolerance answer to players, coaches and in some cases owners, who complained about the quality of officiating, only to have Stern respond with quicker technical fouls being called and even stiffer fines for the critics. His “best officials in all of sports” never were, and it was downright laughable that he consistently preached otherwise. Mr. Stern is living in our world now, his attention diverted towards trying to figure out how to fix a game that once was great, (and that a great game was only once fixed?), rather than trying to convince us that all is well, and how dare we infer otherwise. And if the trade off is his paying less attention to what his players wear off the court and more to the legitimacy of the game on the court, I will gladly take it. If another trade off is the ceasing of his convoluted view of the quality of officiating for a consistent, unbiased application of the rule book, I’ll take that too. In a heartbeat. It’s what we’ve all been yearning for all along.

 We may learn down the road that the problem runs deeper than “A rogue, isolated criminal,” as Stern said in reference to Donaghy in the press conference. He also said that it was limited to only one, as far as he knew. But a couple months ago he would have STERN-ly admonished us for implying that there was even one doing it. For the sake of you and the league, Mr. Stern, I certainly hope you’re right this time. The ball--the classic leather version hopefully--is in your court. Now tap into those millions of dollars in fines you’ve collected and address an upgrade in officiating. It's unfortunate it's taken this dilemma for you to do so, but at least the funds will be put to good use.  

Thanks for taking the time to read.