This article didn't seem so inaccurate either, until it ended up being inaccurate later that very same day:

ESPN - Sources: Vick unlikely to be indicted in feds' probe - NFL

I'm not saying it's definitely inaccurate that Donaghy is going to name names; maybe that's still going to happen. But it's not enough of a basis for me to leap to the conclusion that Stern is covering anything up. And maybe he's gotten ahead of himself in insisting that this is an isolated case, but that's not exactly a crime.

As for refs playing video poker (or engaging in other non-NBA-related gambling), it would be unfortunate if a bunch of them were violating their contracts in that way. But I don't think we would necessarily "crucify" any player who wilfully did something non-criminal that happened to violate his contract.

Do you honestly believe that David Stern doesn't do anything that's not well thought out and calculated? He switched game balls without consulting the players union. Hell, there's a player dress code. I'm not buying it.

As far as the players go, we torch them daily for things they do that aren't illegal. Heck there's entire sports media entities that make their living doing it.

Well, I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. Of course Stern has proven to be overly manipulative many times in the past. I'm just not convinced that there's anything shady going on with the coverage (or lack thereof) in the Donaghy case. I think the reason it's "disappeared" from the news is that...there hasn't been any more news. If something else does come up, I'm pretty sure we'll hear about it, and if it involves other refs fixing games, I have no doubt that it'll be a huge story. I'm not exactly defending Stern here; I'm just questioning how much power he actually has to make inconvenient stories disappear.

The only two instances of this that I can remember is Ben Rothlisberger and Jay Williams violating their motorcycle clauses. Even though they crashed them, we didn't exactly crucify them here.

It's just a contract. It could have said that the refs can't wear pink socks in the swimming pool. It doesn't make it wrong.

Stoudemire, Diaw & the Suns got crucified for their knee-jerk reaction to go to Nash's aid at a critical playoff juncture. By that standard...ALL of the refs should be held to letter of the law contractually.

Do the players have contracts with their teams or with the NBA?

If they do have a contract with the NBA, does that contract prohibit leaving the bench during an altercation? If they violate that clause, do they get fired and forfeit all future payments due under the contract?

If you want these refs to be held under the same standard, then they should get a slap on the wrist and sit out a few games.

My whole point in this is that I think this is a major thing and everyone seems content to just gloss over it and going enjoying their NBA games.

Exactly my point.

My question is this. Why is a technical default a small suspension for a player and a lifetime ban for a ref?

Both of these rules are meant to stop things from getting out of hand. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with leaving a bench or engaging in legal gambling. But they are both stepping stones to more serious offenses. So, in my mind, they are equally serious.

So, yes, they should carry equal penalties.

That would be a start, but I'd include financial penalties also. There are few checks-and-balances for NBA officiating. The Crawford/Duncan incident was a very rare occasion where Stern stepped in and took a ref outta play.