Maybe your reading comprehension needed some help! When I have more time I'll go into it with more details but for now let me try the short version: back in the 60s, 70s the NBA was regarded as a fringe league in professional sports, the other sport leagues had their problems but the NBA was the worst, a lightly regarded organization full of questionable characters, drug use was rampant throughout the league and not a damn thing was done about it, fights would regularly occured and it was dangerous being at an NBA games. Every now and then the media will have a few articles about it, but because back then interests in the NBA was low , few people actually cared. Did the NBA back then try to clean up its image and make themselves into a legitimate professional sport organization? The answer was a big FAIL! The only house cleaning they did was to sweep everything under their rug. I can safely assumed you're a young NBA fan like the majority on this board. I have been watching the NBA since the late 60s, so it's safe to say that my exposure to the NBA is lengthier than yours. If you think covering up your warts instead of getting rid of them is not part of a culture of corruption, I don't know what is my young fellow poster?
I'm pretty sure my reading comprehension is just fine, and needs no help at all. Also, you assume wrong in regards to my age. While I may not have been alive in the 60's nor conceived yet, I have a very thorough knowledge of the NBA. And if you need more perspective, I believe the NBA was at its best when Magic and Bird were in the league. When long tenured rivalries existed, and yes - people actually fought. I don't believe MJ was the greatest ever, and Pistol Pete is one of my favorite players. That aside... What I wanted to know is what fighting has to do w/ the league being corrupt. There's fighting in the NHL. Does that make the NHL corrupt? The fighting wasn't covered up, as you said, it was very apparent. It was on TV. Drug use - Well, that's well documented too. Now I never disagreed that the league was corrupt, but the arguments that you point out have to do, as you said, with an image problem that needed to be cleaned up and NOT corruption as you're implying.
My question is why stop the book if they arent guilty? Why not just deny any involvement and brush him off as a liar. They just make statements like " he has no evidence to prove it". Not we didnt do any of this stuff but that he has no evidence. That to me sounded like the steroide hearings when people started to get caught. I think the NBA has something they are hiding. I just dont know what and to what extent.
Same - even if it is only partly true (which I think is the case), why should he be rewarded for his malfeasance?
