AMERICA AT LARGE:Allegations of a high-level conspiracy to influence match results with a view to maximising TV profits are sure to find many a ready listener, writes George Kimball

IN NATIONAL Basketball Association commissioner David Stern's view - and he's probably right - the timing of Tim Donaghy's broadside was hardly coincidental. Had it been Donaghy's intent to inflict embarrassment upon the NBA by synchronising his allegations of widespread misconduct among his former brethren in the league's officiating department to be aired in an atmosphere of maximum visibility, the disgraced former referee could not have calculated more shrewdly.

Ten months ago Donaghy, having admitted he conspired with gamblers to influence the outcome of selected basketball games between 2003 and 2006, pleaded guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce.

You mean you thought this stuff happened only in Italy? The 13-year veteran potentially faces up to 25 years in prison. He remained free on $250,000 bond, while actually sentencing had been deferred.

With Donaghy's sentencing about to come before the courts, his attorney filed papers in the US District Court in Brooklyn two days ago, not only detailing the extent of his cooperation with the authorities, but including "various examples of improper interactions and relationships between (other) referees and league employees."

While his own misconduct had been fuelled by an out-of-control gambling habit, Donaghy suggested more subtle manipulations by fellow referees. Specifically, be charged that game officials had conspired, at the behest of the league, to make calls ensuring profitable playoff series involving high-profile teams would be extended.

"If the NBA wanted a team to succeed, league officials would inform referees that opposing players were getting away with violations," Donaghy explained in his brief to the court. "Referees then would call fouls on certain players, frequently resulting in victory for the opposing team."

As part of a court record, Donaghy's brief was made public on Tuesday. That night the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers were scheduled to meet in Game Three of the NBA Finals. The best-of-seven series between the league's two marquee franchises was threatening to become a rout. The Celtics' win in Boston on Sunday - a game in which Boston went to the free-throw line 38 times, the Lakers 10 - had given them a 2-0 lead, and it was looking as if the series might be over as early as tonight.

So on Tuesday night in LA the Lakers overcame a five-point deficit to win 87-81. In Game Three, the home team attempted 38 free throws, including 18 by Kobe Bryant alone. That's eight more trips to the line for Kobe than the entire Los Angeles team made a few nights earlier.

In a hastily arranged meeting with the sporting press on Tuesday, Stern had called Donaghy's allegations "baseless", and labelled them old news that had already been investigated. The commissioner, who repeatedly described the former employee as "a convicted felon" and an "admitted felon", further speculated of Donaghy's motivation: "He's dancing as fast as he can. He's a singing, co-operating witness who's trying to get as light a sentence as he can."

Stern also castigated the erstwhile official for "turning on all his colleagues when Mr Donaghy is the only one guilty of a crime."

Tuesday night's officiating crew in Los Angeles, incidentally, included Joey Crawford, who just a year ago was suspended by Stern for the duration of the 2007 playoffs after he apparently used his whistle as the instrument of a personal vendetta against San Antonio's Tim Duncan. When Shira Springer of the Boston Globe asked Crawford to comment on the specifics contained in the Brooklyn court brief, she got a rare (for a referee) on-the-record reply. Which is to say Crawford described Tim Donaghy as both "a liar" and "a piece of shit". You won't get any argument here about either characterisation.

When word that a still-unnamed NBA referee was about to be arrested on match-fixing charges swept through the media centre at the British Open in Carnoustie last July, the most widespread reaction among my colleagues seemed to be: "You mean there was only one of them?"

Put it this way: by pleading guilty less than a month later, Donaghy seemed to be doing the NBA a big favour, since a protracted trial might have kept this unpleasantness before the public eye for the better part of a year. Instead, Stern was able to label Donaghy a "rogue official" and treat the episode as a closed case.

The NBA points to its in-house oversight procedures, in which referees are investigated and monitored to ensure against such improprieties, but the truth of the matter is that had the FBI not stumbled across his name as part of an ongoing investigation of a low- level crime family, Tim Donaghy might well have been working this year's NBA Finals.

Whether Donaghy's allegations are well-founded or, as Stern maintains, he is at this point simply a rat looking for more cheese, is a matter better left to the feds, but it is worth noting here that the NBA has in Stern's 24-year tenure become a high- visibility global organisation worth literally billions of dollars.

The early ratings for the first two games of the 2008 finals indicate that roughly 13.5 million television viewers in the United States alone watched each of them. From a marketing standpoint, whether the championship series lasts four games or seven games translates into 40 million viewers, a matter of no small consequence to Stern or the NBA, and the disposition of the referees chosen to work those games can significantly influence that outcome.

I'm not quite sure exactly who should be in charge of assigning, disciplining, and monitoring the probity of those referees, but it seems clear enough to me that - if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety - it probably ought to be someone other than David Stern.