A rough translation reads: "The NBL Australians should be ashamed, you obviously need to trick your referees to stop us winning championships."
Webster, one of the Breakers' best this season, deleted the message today but his argument remained clear for all to see - the Breakers could still have a shot at an unprecedented fourth straight crown if they were refereed fairly.
The problem being, it's a myopic argument that threatens to paint the Breakers as gracious in victory and anything but in defeat.
There has long been a perception that New Zealand teams competing in Australian competitions are adjudicated more stringently than their opponents, especially when playing across the ditch.
And Webster's claim could have credence if it were purely a case of numbers, with the Breakers last in the league in free-throw attempts allowed, giving up an average of four more trips to the line than any other team.
But such a statistic hardly explains the inconsistency displayed by the champs all season, seeing them fail to string together more than two straight wins. And it played no part in the their 39 per cent field-goal percentage against the Hawks, a category in which they led the league coming into the contest.
The officiating and the Breakers' subsequent struggles to adapt have been a factor in their 9-13 record, but only one factor and certainly not a factor that should be used as an excuse for their downfall.
After all, the rules are the same for every team and the seven other sides in the competition have had no such issues with the new interpretations.
The assertion of bias is merely a smokescreen to detract from the fact the Breakers continually play like champions one week and stutter like a sixth-place club the next.
If the Breakers can clear the minds of such specious allegations and edge second-placed Adelaide today, their title defence still retains a glimmer of hope.
But, if they lose, Webster should probably leave the Portuguese phrase book back at the hotel.
