A very similar thing appears to have happened in the Argentina - Brasil Italia '90 second round match. At one point when an injured player is being attended to players from both teams are milling about. An Argentine player reaches into his own trainer’s bag for a bottle of water and is (apparently) told to “not take THAT one, but THAT one.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_9-k-TTPyk Brasil goes on to lose, 0 - 1 (its only loss to this point to Argentina in World Cup play). Maradona has brazenly admitted to the ploy while Argentina’s manager at the time, Carlos Bilardo, when asked says that “he can’t remember for sure” if something like that was done. Pretty underhanded, if you ask me.
That’s the beauty of a good CT. It’s unfalsifiable. Anything that doesn’t fit, can be hand waved away. Even before I followed NBA, I thought it was ‘decided’ that playoff series would go to the max number of games, for ad revenue. When they don’t, well, that’s just the NBA trying to not make it so obvious.
And, I mostly believe it as well. It’s not entirely a joke to me.
The Los Angeles Dodgers used to doctor their field specifically to cater to Maury Wills’s speed.
Not really famous, but made the rounds against my Nebraska Cornhuskers:
In the mid-90s, Nebraska was pretty much dominating college football. We went 60-3 from 1993-1997 and won three national titles. People were left wondering how an agricultural state college that wasn’t a recruiting hotbed could do so well. So, “they” came up with some story that Nebraska used “country scholarships”. What this meant was NU could give one person per Nebraska county a scholarship, and it wouldn’t count against the NCAA limit. A few flaws:
- NU’s recruiting classes were never stellar; 5-star WRs and QBs don’t play option.
- There are maybe 2-3 urban counties, so not a lot to draw from.
- Even if I take off my rose-colored glasses and admit “If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying”, would the NCAA be fooled by such a transparent gimmick?
You took the words right outta my mouth. And yet so many people believe that they rig it, anyway. Hahahahahahahahaha!
Does Jimmy Hoffa being buried under Giants Stadium count? 
Extremely far-fetched. This wasn’t just about sports – it was the height of the Cold War, and the Soviets couldn’t afford to lose face. Plus, Tikhonov was an absolute dictator and did everything he could to keep his players of defecting. Pulling Tretiak was his way of punishing the guy for disobeying him, not to throw the game. And apparently the Soviet players were so upset over losing the Gold, that none of them turned their medals in to have them engraved – (I believe one guy threw his in the trash!).
Herb Brooks was also one of the best coaches in the history, Craig Patrick comes from a long line of hockey greats (he also went on to become GM for the Pittsburgh Penguins and would draft, among others, Jaromir Jagr, Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin).
Here’s one I kinda half believe.
When MLB hired George Mitchell to head up the investigation into PEDs among baseball players, a lot of people very reasonably cried foul: Mitchell was not exactly an unbiased observer, having been a director of the Red Sox. As someone said, it was a little like asking a stockholder of Hamas to arbitrate a Middle East treaty.
Anyway, various people predicted that no key Red Sox players would appear on the list of those involved with steroids, and whaddaya know, they were right. Of course Ramirez and Ortiz, two of the biggest stars on the '04 team, were later linked to PED use, but only afterward–Mitchell missed them completely.
The Red Sox were certainly a marquee team at the time the commission was formed (early 2006), and while they were no longer the defending champs the story of that '04 team was still very much in people’s minds. It’s easy to see the powers that be deciding that they couldn’t afford to have any Boston players on the list, and recognizing that Ramirez and Ortiz would both show up with a real investigation, embarrassing baseball and throwing the '04 championship into controversy. And perhaps that’s why they chose Mitchell, knowing perfectly well–or at the very least expecting–that he’d give the Red Sox players a pass.
(As I said, I only half-believe it, because Mitchell wound up dragging in a bunch of Yankees–the other franchise you’d think baseball would want to protect.)
Oscar De La Hoya fought Bernard Hopkins in 2004 and some people suspected the fight was fixed.
Oscar owned a promotion company at the time. The fight was fairly uneventful. Hopkins hit Oscar with a soft (looking) body shot, Oscar goes down, dramatically pounds the canvas in frustration and can’t get up from the pain. A few months later Hopkins chooses to sign with Oscars promotion company.
Some people suspected Oscar threw the fight in exchange for securing Hopkins’ contract. I don’t consider this likely.
Oscar was not a very good middleweight (relative to Hopkins and other historical middleweight fighters) whereas Hopkins is an all time great middleweight and was near his prime. He was also a heavy favorite to win anyway. There’s no need to fix that fight, when Hopkins could beat that version of Oscar handily in a legitimate manner.
I think it was just a well placed liver shot that legitimately dropped Oscar. It’s possible that Oscar felt he couldn’t win the fight after that and stayed down to spare himself the embarrassment/punishment of the next 3 or 4 rounds, but I don’t think that’s in his character.
There appears to have been an impromptu, improvised “gentlemen’s agreement” (“gentleman” actually being a poor choice of word) between Austrian and German players. In 2007 (25 years after the infamous match in Gijon, Spain), Austrian player Walter Schachner gave a series of interviews in which he claimed that some of the top German and Austrian players talked to one other when they returned to the field after the half time break. Schachner says he wasn’t told about this until after the game. Incidentally, Schachner is about the only player who can be seen making serious efforts in the second half.
Schachner said that at one point during the second half, German player Karl-Heinz Briegel approached him and told him: “Come on, man, stop running so hard!” (“Mensch, Junge hör’ doch mal auf zu rennen!”).
Briegel denied that the match was fixed, but he acknowledged that there was some kind of unspoken, common understanding that it would be a wise thing to not take risks at that point.
Yes, the Austria-Germany game was not so much the fault of the teams as the organisers, for allowing such a possibility to occur. It’s why nowadays, all final-round group games are contested simultaneously, despite the (probably small) cost in TV revenue this entails. A simple and effective solution. I mean, what do you expect the players to do in the given situation? If either team deviates from the plan, they expose themselves to a risk that it may not work out for them (e.g. if Germany pushes for a second goal, they could concede one themselves which would be bad news). Best to stick with the status quo that everyone is happy with. Yes, I feel sorry for the Algerians, but ire should be directed mainly at the tournament organisers.
I hate when people attempt to rationalize stuff like that. Your argument, to me, is like saying, “Well, if people don’t like mass shootings to occur then they should just mandate that everybody carry firearms at all times!” I just don’t buy your argument that “it’s all the organizers’ fault.” The “organizers” set things up like that in the first place in the belief that players and teams would make a good faith effort to gain results on the pitch no matter the circumstances. When that was shown to not always be the case (the other infamous example being from 4 years earlier when Perú’s team completely caved in to Argentina’s) THEN FIFA decided to act. I’m no fan of FIFA’s but they aren’t the ones who violated the spirit of the tournament in those instances and I don’t think they deserve the blame that you’re trying to assign them with in this case.
They may not have been making a good faith effort to win that game, but both teams were trying to win the tournament. If you can get out of the group stage and save a little energy, that’s the sound, strategic thing to do. We’re not talking about throwing a game because you’re being paid to or bet on the other team. Each team was doing what was in their own best interest.
Playing it safe basically would have been reasonable advice. Plus, the 1982 World Cup was played in Spain in the heat of summer. The next game for Germany was scheduled only 4 days later (3 days for the Austrians); saving energy and avoiding injuries was certainly a consideration.
The way it played out, of course, was awful. The commentator for Austrian TV urged his viewers to turn off their TV sets, the German TV commentator expressed his disgust by going silent.
It’s noteworthy that the World Cup was played with two group stages from 1974 to 1982 (in 1974 and 1978, they didn’t even play semifinals).
Sure, sacrifice bunts are common in baseball. You give up an out in order to (ideally) improve your chances of winning the game.
This is just a step beyond that: you give up a scoring chance to (ideally) improve your chances of winning the tournament.
It’s the setup that’s the problem.
I know of one that’s actually true: that the Pittsburgh Penguins threw the 1982-1983 season in order to draft Mario Lemieux.
While they didn’t deliberately throw any games, the coaching staff pretty much admitted that they made decisions that would make it more likely for them to lose games (not playing their better players, for example, or even sending them down to the minors.) Eddie Johnston (our general manager at the time) even traded Randy Carlyle away to Winnipeg.
And quite frankly, as Johnston pointed out, without Mario the Pens wouldn’t be here today if he hadn’t. 
I think Adam Silver threw a pretty clear anti-tanking message to the Bucks and Sixers this year. “Oh, you stunk up the season to get a good shot at the first pick? Well look at that, Cleveland won the lottery again.” I won’t even go into the idea that they’ve won three lotteries as compensation for losing LeBron…
I remembered. As you may recall the following exchange upthread,
I promised to try to find the source that I read about this scandal.
Google fu was not needed… My brain actually pulled this one out from some dark, gray (matter) place.
In the book “The Great America Sports Book” by George Gipe, this scandal is discussed.
Here is a summary of the story.
In December, 1926, Cobb and Speaker were both accused of fixing a game. The game in question was played on Sept. 25, 1919… The same year the White Sox threw the series.
1926 was the year both Speaker and Cobb retired, and although Speaker was 38 and Cobb 40, both players were going strong and their retirement announcements came as a surprise.
What happened was this: in September, 1919, Cleveland was in Detroit for a late season series. Cleveland had already clinched 2nd place in the AL, but the Tigers were in a fight for 3rd with the Yankees. After the first game was over, Speaker, Cobb, Smokey Joe Wood and Dutch Leonard met under the stands. One topic lead to another, when, according to Leonard, it was decided that the Indians would let the Tigers win the next game. Then it dawned on them that since they knew who was going to win, they might as well make a few dollars on it. So Cobb agreed to put up $2000, Leonard $1500, and Speaker and Wood $1000 each. The Sept., 25 game was won by the Tigers 9-5…
Leonard produced two letters as proof and gave them to Landis, one written by Joe Wood, the other by Ty Cobb. Joe Wood’s letter to Dutch laid out the bets and who won what, Cobb’s letter to Dutch discussed his disappointment in not being able to place his bet in time, as the gamblers he was dealing with wouldn’t take the $2000 he wanted to put up. They finally agreed on $1400, but the bet came too late and the money was never wagered, leaving Cobb out of the payday.
The letters were authentic, and Landis wanted to ban all 4 from baseball immediately. Wood and Leonard were finished by 1926, but Cobb and Speaker could still play, and planned on playing in 1927.
Landis knew that a scandal this big would rock baseball, especially on the heels of the Black Sox scandal. So he suggested to Cobb and Speaker that they would retire for personal reasons, and since all 4 players were out of the game, there was no need for a full-scale investigation.
Cobb, however, wasn’t a pushover like Joe Jackson, and he didn’t like how the Commissioner was handling the situation. So he threatened Landis with a lawsuit that would “reveal many interesting things about organized baseball”, including fake turnstile/attendance counts, and illegal book-juggling by major league owners.
Landis backed down and issued a statement in January of 1927, exonerating all 4 of the players, thereby keeping them all off the ineligible list.
This story really makes me wonder how Baseball can keep Rose out of the HoF, since Cobb and Speaker should have been banned for life as well.
I think baseball should also look at Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, two members of the Black Sox that both claimed they weren’t a part of the fix. Especially Weaver, who received no money and lost his career. All he wanted was to be taken off the ineligible list, and baseball has kept him on all this time. I think Jackson got some cash during the Black Sox scandal, but his play indicated that he didn’t do anything personally to throw any games.
Yes, this is true… And was the reason why the NHL changed the draft rules. I believe the following year, the bottom three teams were put in a lottery. I’m sure someone who knows more will come by and correct me. But this was the only thing that Eddie Johnston did right that year.
Mario Lemieux is the single reason that the Penguins are still in Pittsburgh. I thank the hockey gods for the arrival of Mario and for what he has done for the Penguins organization. Without him, the team is relocated out of Pittsburgh in the 1980’s.
And Eddie Johnston should send Mario a big old Christmas Card with a big present each year, too… Because drafting Mario was the only thing he did as GM that made the Penguins a better team. Now when Mario was coming out of juniors, even a monkey could have drafted him, but the fact that EJ orchestrated the losses down the stretch of the season, AND didn’t screw up drafting the best player since Gretzky, he was able to stick around the Pens organization for years after he should have been canned.
The Baltimore Ravens’ Ray Lewis thought the league caused the 2013 Super Bowl blackout to get the 49ers back into the game.
[QUOTE=Stink Fish Pot]
This story (about a baseball game being fixed) really makes me wonder how Baseball can keep Rose out of the HoF, since Cobb and Speaker should have been banned for life as well.
[/quote]
Cobb and Speaker’s alleged behavior doesn’t absolve Rose for what he did (I’m for Rose’s Hall eligibility being restored at some point*, but “others got away with bad things” is not a valid argument in my view).
As for Shoeless Joe, taking money to throw a World Series (even if he was obviously trying to play more than the others) is a plenty good argument for keeping him out of the Hall of Fame). And Weaver arguably didn’t have the stats for election before being banned.
*although if he keeps pulling stunts like managing one of the teams in an independent league game, that day will be a long time in coming.
Yeah, I see your point. It is hard to argue for Shoeless Joe. If he took money, he took money, and that is a strong sign that he was in on the fix. However, Speaker went 3 for 5 with 2 triples in the fixed game with the Tigers, so he played well too, while earning money on the fixed outcome. I just don’t like the clear double standard. Kicking Cobb and Speaker out of the HoF would probably be impossible now, but that is what should happen to make things right. (IMO, of course.)
As for Weaver, there are 3 points. One, he had years of his career ahead of him, so it is impossible to know if he would have been hall worthy. But let’s assume you are right, and he would not have been. Then 2) getting his eligibility back would have permitted him to at least work in baseball, as a manager or coach, or even a scout. It would also untarnish his reputation, which was apparently very important to Weaver… Much more than getting into the HoF, which was never his argument. The man tried to get his status changed 6 times until his death in 1956 (and his status has NEVER been changed), so I think he just wanted his reputation back, something that would have been and still is easy to accomplish. His niece tried to get him reinstated at the 2003 all-star game in Chicago by approaching the commissioner in person. She failed.
But 3) is my biggest reason that Weaver should have never been kicked out of baseball and should be re-instated immediately. Buck Weaver’s crime, according to Landis, was knowing that teammates were in a conspiracy to fix the WS and did nothing about it. Landis said he should have told his manager at the minimum, or his team or the league. So he was punished for not being a snitch. Also, and more importantly, there was no rule at the time compelling him to turn his teammates in. The scenario was never contemplated. So to ban a guy for life for something he had no idea could have resulted in his banning is just wrong, and his case would have been overturned in today’s baseball world. The union would have sued baseball immediately if something like that happened today, and they would win. And Weaver would have won any case that went to court. Even back in the 20’s, Weaver sued Comisky for his 1921 salary and won.
Keeping him out now is just baseball being baseball, and refusing to do what is right based on some archaic notion of tradition. Any change in baseball is looked at with scorn.
You’ve answered your own question. Players on the permanently ineligible list cannot be elected to the Hall of Fame. That’s the Hall of Fame’s rule, not “baseball’s.” Jackson is on the list, Cobb and Speaker are not.
Jackson admitted, under oath, to accepting money to throw the World Series. How was he not part of the fix?
I would agree the evidence suggests Buck Weaver might have been collateral damage, but it’s hard to say he’s “being kept out of baseball” anymore, he’s dead.