The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The law enforcement official, who spoke to the AP on Friday on condition of anonymity, said the referee was aware of the investigation and had made arrangements to surrender as early as next week to face charges. “Those are people that you work with and that you literally — you spend more time with those people than you do with your family.”

Benson said he didn’t work with Donaghy much.

“You have a lot of acquaintances and very few friends. … I probably worked a handful of games with him overall, just a handful.”

“If these allegations are true, it just cuts to the heart of the integrity of the sport,” says basketball analyst Len Elmore.

© 2007 CBS Interactive Inc. Before becoming a referee, Donaghy played varsity basketball at Villanova University.

“We would like to assure our fans that no amount of effort, time or personnel is being spared to assist in this investigation, to bring to justice an individual who has betrayed the most sacred trust in professional sports, and to take the necessary steps to protect against this ever happening again.”

The investigation first was reported Friday by the New York Post.

According to a law enforcement official, authorities are examining whether the referee made calls to affect the point spread in games on which he or associates had wagered.

The FBI probe, which began recently, also involves allegations that the referee had connections to organized crime associates. In all, Donaghy has officiated 704 regular season games and 15 playoff games, CBS News reports. All Rights Reserved. He has seven years of CBA officiating experience including the 1993 CBA All-Star Game and five years of high school officiating experience in Pennsylvania. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Other arrests are expected, the official said.

The FBI is investigating allegations that veteran NBA referee Tim Donaghy bet on basketball games over the past two seasons, including ones in which he officiated.

Defense attorney John Lauro confirmed Donaghy is under investigation but refused to comment on the allegations or the case.

The referee had a gambling problem, according to the official, and was approached by low-level mob associates through an acquaintance.

Over the years it has been a mortal fear of all leagues that the guardians of their game would be somehow touched by scandal, reports CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian.

“As we previously stated, we have been cooperating with the FBI in their investigation of allegations that a single NBA referee bet on NBA games that he officiated,” commissioner David Stern said in a statement Friday afternoon.

“I’m shocked, terribly shocked,” said Gary Benson, an NBA official for 17 years who retired two years ago because of knee problems. The official, who did not identify the referee, is familiar with the investigation but was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation.

The law enforcement official said the bets involved thousands of dollars and were made on games during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 seasons.

According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Donaghy officiated 68 games in the 2005-06 season and 63 games in 2006-07. He also worked 20 playoff games, including five last season.

Although asked by the government not to comment, Stern said the naming of Donaghy prompted a fuller statement.

Beaverton, Oregon-based Nike made several blunders in courting Curry, including mispronouncing his name during a business meeting, according to ESPN. His stumble, though, didn’t hurt the performance of Under Armour’s golf business, which helped fuel a 20 percent gain in apparel sales during the latest quarter.

During the most recent quarter, Under Armour revenue surged 30 percent to $1.05 billion, while net income jumped 63 percent to $19 million, or 4 cents per share.

© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc.. Louis. According to the company, it earned more revenue in 90 days in China this year than it did in the full year of 2014.

The 22-year-old Spieth is a pro golfer with promising future, who gained notoriety recently after squandering a chance to win the Masters Tournament with poor play. The Baltimore-based company today reported quarterly profit that was twice as strong as Wall Street analysts had expected, thanks in part to a 64 percent increase in sales of athletic footwear, with Curry basketball and running shoes responsible for the gain.

Newton, 26, quarterbacks the Carolina Panthers and is one of the most popular players in the NFL. Other Under Armour athletes include New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and Bryce Harper, who plays for baseball’s Washington Nationals.

The athletic apparel maker’s other lines of business performed well during the quarter, and China was another bright spot. That is, until 2013, when the largest producer of sports apparel botched its chance to re-sign Curry, paving the way for rival Under Armour (UA) to nab him — and launch a wildly successful line of Curry footwear.

Under Armour’s ties to Curry and other big-name athletes is getting much of the credit.

“And to be clear, that 30 percent number was no accident,” said Under Amour Chief Executive Kevin Plank today in a conference call with Wall Street analysts. “When Stephen Curry decided to average 30 points this season to take the scoring title while wearing the number 30, we thought that putting up 30 percent growth on our end was the best way for us to demonstrate our pride and support of Stephen and the Warriors.”

“It seems like the shoe business will help them open a lot of doors and drive brand awareness internationally,” said Betty Chen, an analyst at Mizuho Securities, who rates Under Armour as a “buy.” “We also think they are likely taking share from other brands.”. “By turning on the young fans, that not only leads to current purchases but hopefully will build a brand loyalty with those customers as they become older teenagers and grow into their 20s.”

For most of his life, pro basketball player Stephen Curry was a fan of Nike (NKE) and endorsed the company’s products. Now, Nike’s loss is clearly Under Armour’s gain.

Curry, 28, is considered by many sports writers to be a shoo-in to win the NBA’s Most Valuable Player Award for the second straight year. Not only did Curry’s Golden State Warriors start the season with a record of 24-0, but they ended it by breaking the league’s single-season win record — held by Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls.

Curry remains a fan favorite, which should help Under Armour accelerate sales of his footwear, including the Curry 2.5 shoe, which debuts later this month, and the Curry 3 due to launch later this summer.

“A large part of these gains is tied to their ability to connect with and have relations with arguably with three of the most transcendent athletes that we have now in sports with Steph Curry, [pro golfer] Jordan Spieth and [NFL quarterback] Cam Newton,” said Patrick Rishe, director of the sports business program at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. All Rights Reserved

As Moore puts it in his journal article:

Johnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I.I., & Bouchard, T.J., Jr. A currently active area of research is the study of epigenetics, and how the many interacting genes that make up any trait are differentially activated depending on the environment. Nature and nurture are inextricably intertwined, and it’s time for science to figure out how.

The heritability of a trait can vary from 0.00 to 1.00, depending on the environments from which research participants are sampled. Nonetheless, it is quite obvious that genetic factors play a role in determining the number of fingers we have on each of our hands!

Instead, the crucial environmental factors might remain unmeasured, and consequently, variability of those factors across the new range of environments could easily be very different than the variability of those factors across the environments sampled in the original study.

Of course, we could just aim to measure all of the environmental factors that might affect the development of a trait. Therefore, gene-environment interactions are understood to drive the development of all of our characteristics. The rich tend to get rich, and the poorer tend to get poorer. Parents matter to the extent that they support the expression of genes.

Heritability Depends Entirely On Context

Even so, the findings from twin studies should not be understated; it counters many a prevailing belief that we are born into this world as blank slates, completely at the mercy of the external environment.

The fact that both our genes and our environment contribute to who we are and depend on each other is actually quite a good thing! Give too much control to our environment or our genes, and we lose free will. This cycle continues to magnify observed ability differences in basketball between those who keep getting opportunities to increase their skills and those who didn’t get picked that first time. But does this mean that the variable “has a family” doesn’t matter in determining whether or not a person develops the ability to speak a language? Of course not! That’s like saying that water has no influence on a fish’s development because all fish live in water. Imagine if you were born slightly taller than others (maybe you don’t have to imagine this!). Because adoption and twin studies that seek to account for trait variation in terms of genetic and environmental variation are always correlational, they reveal nothing about the causes of the appearance of the traits.

Deary, I.J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. This would give you more experience in basketball, which increase the chances you’d get picked first for another team. There is reason to believe that under more dire circumstances, the heritability of IQ would be significantly lower than that reported by Bouchard. After all, if everyone were raised in an identical environment, variations in their psychological characteristics couldn’t possibly be accounted for by anything other than variations in their genes (since there would be no variations in their developmental environments); the more variation in environments that twins in twin studies are exposed to, the lower the heritabilities we should expect to find.

Heritability Is Not The Same As Heredity

Heritability does not tell us how likely it is that people’s characteristics will be inherited by their children. But it is not at all obvious prior to developmental analysis which environmental factors might make important contributions to the development of specific traits, so that approach would leave us measuring a seriously unwieldy number of variables.

This Blogger’s Books and Other Items from…

None of the twins in Bouchard’s study were reared in real poverty, were raised by illiterate parents, or were mentally retarded. Consequently, in this study, the heritability of IQ was reported to be close to zero! Among the richest, however, the heritability of IQ approached what Bouchard found: Variations in the genes accounted for most of the differences in IQ scores, and the shared environment accounted for very little of the variance. (2003) The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “Nature vs. The way we work gives us choice.

Let’s be clear: Twin studies have received much criticism. Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of twins reared apart. (1990). and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota published a striking finding: About 70 percent of the variance in IQ found in their particular sample of identical twins was found to be associated with genetic variation.

Environmental factors influence the development of highly heritable traits just as much as they influence the development of non-heritable traits (i.e. (2010). Genes vary within any group of people (even among the inhabitants of middle-class in Western society), and this variation contributes to variations in these people’s behaviors. The studies say nothing about how they matter, or which genes matter, but they show quite convincingly that they indeed do matter. Moore, to list eight facts about genes, twin studies, and the heritability statistic that may come as a surprise to many people — even biologists!

Does Heritability Have Any Practicality?

In 1990, Thomas J. (2009). Hence, such studies are unable to generate satisfying understandings of the factors and processes that contribute to the development of intelligence.

Because heritability is a population statistic, it has nothing to say about the individual. Moore has argued that even this is not significant when we realize that the magnitude of any heritability statistic reflects the extent of variation in unidentified non-genetic factors that contribute to the development of the trait in question.

In fact, the least heritable features of human nature may be those that appear to be the most genetically determined! Consider the fact that having 5 fingers on each of our hands is not a particularly heritable characteristic (because most finger number variations in humans are attributable not to genetic variation, but to variations in experiences, such as accidents). Furthermore, identical twins reared apart were eerily similar to identical twins reared together on various measures of personality, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes.

Heritability Says Nothing About Whether Intelligence Is More Determined By Genes Or The Environment

It turns out that parenting matters, just in a way different than originally assumed. However, David S. The Flynn effect should be a reminder of just how much the environment matters, even after completely controlling for genes (by looking at IQ changes across generations).

Genes, By Themselves, Can’t Determine Anything

Some of the most well-known behavioral geneticists, including Thomas Bouchard, Jr., recognize that it’s time to move beyond heritability estimates. Bouchard, Jr. It makes no sense to ask whether a particular individual’s intelligence has been more determined by nature or by nurture. Just because a variable doesn’t vary doesn’t mean it has no causal impact on a particular outcome.

Even if a population of individuals were to develop in a range of environments believed to be the same as that in which a particular study was conducted, the results of that study would not allow us to predict developmental outcomes in the new range of environments because the environmental factors that the researchers originally focused on — and controlled for — might not be the relevant environmental factors at all.

In reality, all biological and psychological characteristics are constructed during development, when genes interact with local environmental factors that can be influenced by the broader environment. Somehow, this finding translates to the media as “parenting doesn’t matter.” This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Therefore, when it comes to understanding the development of a trait in a particular person, nature can never be separated from nurture. Genes are the mechanisms of experience.

Twin Studies Do Not Reveal The Causes Of Intellectual Development

Twin studies partition the variance in nature and the variance in nurture. Even though the proliferation of advanced statistical techniques (such as structural equation modeling) and the implementation of additional controls have allayed some of the concerns, they haven’t allayed all of the them.

At the very least, heritability tells us how much of the variation in IQ can be accounted for by variation in genetic factors when development occurs in an exquisitely specific range of environments. Let’s imagine that a study of alcoholism in the United States finds that the vast majority of the variation in people’s tendencies to drink to excess can be accounted for by variation in their genes. To put things in perspective, I teamed up with the well-known developmental psychologist at Pitzer College, David S. The causal route from genes to behavior is often very complex!

Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., Onofio, B, & Gottesman, I.I. Genes could “account for” 100 percent of the variability in a trait in a particular twin study, but this does not mean that environmental factors are therefore unimportant in the development of the trait; parents still matter and will always matter.

Heritability Doesn’t Necessarily Have To Do With Biology

We hope these eight facts have cleared up some misunderstandings. Genes matter to the extent that they support parenting, because like any other behavior, parenting behaviors are influenced by the genes. Psychological Science, 14, 623-628.

Moore, D.S.. This study points to the fact that estimates of heritability depend on the sample that is studied, and the environment of that sample.

It’s important to keep in mind that the route from genotype (genetic makeup) to phenotype (observed behavior) is hardly ever clear-cut. Beyond heritability: Twin studies in behavioral research. Likewise, as can be seen from the example below, genetic factors influence the development of non-heritable traits just as much as they influence the development of highly heritable traits.

Adoption studies and twin studies do not entail the purposeful manipulation of either specific genes or specific environmental factors. Because we know that genes play some role in the development of any trait, the precise heritability estimate doesn’t matter in a practical sense.

The Actual Heritability Value Simply Does Not Matter

Unfortunately, findings from twin studies are often misunderstood, misinterpreted and blown out of proportion — not just by the media, but even by serious scientists who get their work published.

Because we cannot assess the variability (across our testing environments) of all the yet-to-be-identified non-genetic factors that influence IQ, Moore argues that estimates of the heritability of IQ are effectively uninterpretable and unable to be applied in any appropriate way. Because our psychological characteristics reflect the physical structures of our brains and because our genes contribute to those physical structures, there are unlikely to be any psychological characteristics that are completely unaffected by our DNA. The Flynn effect — the dramatic rise in IQ witnessed in the 20th century — is a good example of that. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. We often talk as if we “inherit” full-blown traits from our parents, like eye colors, nose shapes and shyness. (2003). Nature and nurture are complementary, not at odds.

Because the development of behavioral and psychological characteristics can be influenced by experiential factors in ways that are unpredictable from casual observation, we cannot hope to happen to measure — through sheer lucky guesswork — which environmental factors contribute importantly to the development of those characteristics; we first need to understand the mechanisms by which those traits develop.

[Genes] are devices for extracting information from the environment. Science writer Matt Ridley has put it this way:

This raises a deeper point: Depending on what you hold constant, you can either show a genetic contribution or an environmental contribution. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 11, 201-211.

It’s very easy to imagine how slight genetic predispositions can get magnified through the course of development by the environment. Consequently, it doesn’t matter how heritable a trait is; if development of the offspring occurs in a different environment than the parent developed in, most bets are off.

Heritability depends on the amount of variability in the environmental factors that contribute to a trait. But all that we actually inherit from our parents are our genes and our genes’ (and our) environments, factors that then construct full-blown traits during development. Nurture.” New York, NY: Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

Turkheimer’s study should also be a reminder that just because something is heritable doesn’t mean it’s immutable. Naked DNA (or RNA) is simply not sufficient to produce psychological or biological traits.

The parenting factors that are statistically associated with differences between individuals should never be confused with the parenting factors that cause the development of a trait within an individual. Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Since every single person in twin studies checks that box — that is, they are raised in a family of some sort — this factor never varies and thus does not predict differences in ability to speak a language. If we then take a baby, newly born to a pair of alcoholic American parents, and raise it in a small village in southern India where it never encounters alcohol across its lifespan, it will not develop alcoholism. After reading these facts, it might be reasonable to ask, “Does the heritability coefficient have any practical value?”

. The problem is that our understanding of the factors that contribute to the development of human traits in general — and to IQ in particular — is currently so deficient that we typically do not know if the environmental factors important in the development of a particular trait are stable across testing situations, vary somewhat across those situations, or vary wildly across those situations.

Bouchard’s study, along with many others, has painted a consistent picture: Genes matter. You get picked first for the basketball team, whereas your smaller friends may not get picked at all. Science, 250, 223-228. Because traits that are 100 percent heritable can nonetheless be strongly influenced by environmental factors, it is not the case that a trait found to be heritable in a particular twin study will be passed from a given pair of parents to their children. As already stated, every trait develops through the interplay of genes and the environment. This allows researchers to determine whether differences in genes or differences in the environment in a particular population are associated with more of the differences in observed behavior.

Parents Matter, And Will Always Matter

In one study, Eric Turkheimer and colleagues studied 320 pairs of 7-year-old twins who were raised in extreme poverty. Among the poorest, the shared environment accounted for most of the differences in IQ (60 percent), and the genes accounted for very little. It’s possible for many traits to involve gene-environment correlations. The genes and environment eventually become correlated.

Many psychologists continue to compute heritability statistics without questioning what exactly it is that they reveal to us. Unfortunately, careful consideration of these statistics suggests that they might not be applicable in any meaningful way, and so, consequently, are uninteresting at best and misleading at worst.

Take the most essential element: a child needs to be raised in a family, almost any kind of family, to develop the ability to speak a language. The point is that both are always contributing to the development of any trait, and context matters in which accounts for more of the differences in a trait.

Bouchard, , T.J., Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Segal, N.L., & Tellegen, A. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 217-220.

The authors of many twin studies have claimed that the environments experienced by twins (or any two siblings) do little to create differences in intelligence and personality as adults. a trait like height, which is highly heritable in most developed nations, is very affected by environmental factors, like diet). Those who repeatedly don’t get picked for the basketball team may invest in other skills, such as physics or art. The idea here is that environments set off an appetite in the genes that nudges individuals to engage in certain experiences, and the environment then responds in a reciprocal fashion that reinforces an individual’s nature. Every minute, every second, the pattern of genes being expressed in your brain changes, often in direct or indirect response to events outside the body