Donaghy revelations have raised even more questions

Tim Donaghy (left), shown here with Tracy McGrady, received $5,000 for providing tips that led to winning bets, according to the FBI. AP

RELATED • BURNS: NBA's headache not over yet

MAILBAG Marty Burns will periodically answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

My friend Al is a big conspiracy theorist. He thinks everybody's scamming.

He loves to tell the story, for example, about the guy in his old neighborhood who had an "in" at the fire department. For $500, he could make sure you'd pass the written exam needed to get a job. He even provided a money-back guarantee.

Of course, he didn't really have an "in." He just took the money from the unwitting sucker, hoping the guy would pass the test on his own. If the guy flunked, well, he gave the money back. No harm. No foul.

I thought of Al the other day when former referee Tim Donaghy pleaded guilty to "providing inside information" to gamblers about NBA games.

According to the FBI, Donaghy would get $5,000 for providing tips that led to winning picks. If the picks didn't pan out, he didn't get anything.

Sounds like a pretty good deal for Donaghy, doesn't it?

Of course, Donaghy wasn't pulling some con. His co-conspirators weren't stupid. They knew what they were doing by giving him such a sweet deal.

They could have made things tough for Donaghy down the road had he failed to deliver enough "winners." At the very least, they could have exposed him and ruined his career. At the worst, they could have done what the lion does to the zebra on the nature channel.

But while the Donaghy situation was quite serious, it still seems like a scam right out of my friend Al's wildest imagination. After all, what made Donaghy think he could predict the outcomes of games he wasn't working?

According to Donaghy's guilty plea, he parlayed his access to "inside information" in three ways: he knew which crews were working games; he knew about refs' particular relationships with certain players; and he had inside dope about injuries.

Let's take a look at all three statements, one by one:

He knew the refs' schedules

Is this really "actionable intelligence?" Yes, certain refs might have certain tendencies in how they call a game. But it's nowhere near enough to guarantee anything. Certainly not enough to make one comfortable plunking down thousands of dollars.

Many coaches and players will look at the list of officials before a game and try to glean some insight into what type of game to expect. But I would be shocked if any of them claimed they could predict a particular outcome from it or even whether it was more likely to hit the over/under.

It just seems a reach to think Donaghy or anybody could gain a real betting edge from knowing which refs were working a certain game.

He knew about relationships

This one is the most damaging for the NBA from a PR standpoint. It seems to solidify the theory that referees favor certain players or coaches, and might shade their calls accordingly. But from a gambler's standpoint, this kind of "tip" on its face would be of highly dubious value. Just because a ref might not like a particular player or coach hardly guarantees he's going to go out and get him every game.

Did Nick Van Exel's teams lose every game that Ronnie Garretson worked after Van Exel ran into him at the scorer's table in 1996? Did Dennis Rodman's teams lose every game Ted Bernhardt worked after the flamboyant rebounder head-butted the ref in a game at New Jersey in '96? Did Don Nelson's teams lose every game Joey Crawford worked after their celebrated blowup in the 2003 Western Conference playoffs?

He knew about injuries

How would a ref get consistent "inside" info on injuries? They aren't at practice or game-day shootarounds to get the latest updates on injured players. On the night of games, they show up an hour or so before tip-off. I don't see how Donaghy or any ref would be able to find out the status of a player until maybe right before the game -- and that doesn't leave much time to call the bookie.

I just don't see how this kind of information was enough for Donaghy or his co-conspirators. I know if I were putting my hard-earned money down, I'd want a little more in the way of security.

Unless, of course, there is more to the story than the FBI or Donaghy is letting on. If Donaghy knew something about those other refs working games, or knew some trainers or team officials who were providing specific information about injured players, it would be a different story. Then his "information" would be a lot more valuable, wouldn't it?

Meanwhile, there is one more question about the whole Donaghy situation that doesn't quite add up. The FBI says Donaghy bet on games in which he officiated, so we can assume he used the whistle to help his own cause. But if he did, why didn't the feds charge him with anything related to those actions?

Was it just too hard to come up with concrete evidence that would show Donaghy committing a crime?

Or were the feds protecting the NBA?

Maybe I've been listening to Al too long, but it does kinda make you wonder, doesn't it?