Ka-Boom!! Adam Silver hammers Sterling

[willie warrior]

Reasonable and ethical? Really?

And your answer is for the black guys to shut up? That is truly priceless. Where do you really stand on the issue 

Look at it another way: You have owned a business for 30 plus years and have built it up. Some bimbo baits you into saying some reprehensible stupid thing in private, and somebody tells you you must sell your business. Have you ever said something stupid in your own domicile that should justify somebody telling you to sell your home or business? Now I cannot say that he did violate or did not violate NBA by laws, because they are not all public. The fine and the ban are good things, but ordering you to sell your business? It appears that he has run his business responsibly or why has the NBA not reacted prior to this. As Bill Maher said: being an ahole is not yet a crime in this country.

The funny thing is: attorneys and Sterling will walk away with the money. And yes, if black guys say racist things, they should shut up. But they won't. It is a hypocritical double standard. I already said the guy is a stupid senile douche. That is where I really stand.

[MU82]

First time I've ever thanked anyone for quoting WW.  Confirming the wisdom of ignore.  What tin-eared drivel.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I love having willie on ignore. Thankfully, willie's "Greatest Hits" often show up in another poster's responses to his remarkably ignorant posts. And this one was particularly remarkable.

[MU82]

So now we are going to regulate private speech meant for one person.  Do you have outrage for his mistress?  Should you go to prison for invading his privacy (CA is a double consent state)?  Or is she a hero for bringing this to light?

As Cuban said, if this is the standard, no owner will survive.  It is just a matter of time before they get caught.

And where do we draw the line?  Homophobia statements?  Sexists? Religious? How about political affiliation?  Do we ban owners that are against tax increases?  How about class statements (poor v rich)?

Point is what controversial statement is one allowed to say and still keep their team?  

To paraphrase Bill Mahar, you're still allowed to be an a**ho*e in this country.  That is not a crime.

I have zero problems with a private enterprise (the NBA) using whatever methods it deems necessary (including private recordings that go public) to police its own member owners.

THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! I work for a private company. If I am caught by that company saying something like Sterling did, I will be fired immediately. It will not matter that I have a constitutional right to say it. It will not matter that "it's not a crime to be an a-hole." All that matters is the private enterprise that employs me didn't like what I said.

When Sterling became an owner, he signed documents giving the NBA the power to do exactly what is being done to him now. From everything I've read, the NBA should have done something a lot sooner. It seems David Stern was the ultimate enabler.

Oh, and you are right about what Cuban said. However, you conveniently left out that Cuban later added that he was 100% behind Silver and the penalties.

[jesmu84]

I find it interesting that an owner who has a private conversation involving racist comments = essentially being kicked out of the league.

But players committing assault, rape, whatever other crimes = fines, possible jail time, but, more importantly, NOT kicked out of the league (with a few minor exceptions)

The difference, from what I see, is Sterling's situation was threatening the organization's profits.

[mu_hilltopper]

2014 is the start of a new the era.   The list of opinions that if held, lead to utter condemnation and ruin, now stands at two. 

Surely, there will be more horrific opinions added as this new process claims more unspeakable opinions. 

And the NSA can really help with this process, too.  Gonna need to examine everyone's personal conversations.

[GGGG]

I find it interesting that an owner who has a private conversation involving racist comments = essentially being kicked out of the league.

But players committing assault, rape, whatever other crimes = fines, possible jail time, but, more importantly, NOT kicked out of the league (with a few minor exceptions)

The difference, from what I see, is Sterling's situation was threatening the organization's profits.

Well, and players are protected by the CBA.

[GGGG]

2014 is the start of a new the era.   The list of opinions that if held, lead to utter condemnation and ruin, now stands at two.  

Surely, there will be more horrific opinions added as this new process claims more unspeakable opinions.  

And the NSA can really help with this process, too.  Gonna need to examine everyone's personal conversations.

Yeah....poor Donald Sterling is ruined because he will be forced to sell his team for 100 times the value at which he paid for it.  My heart goes out to him.

But really, the issue isn't what he said in the end.  It really is more about what he has done over the course of his career to use his power to inflict real harm on a group of people because of their race.  If his words were in a vacuum, I might agree with you.  But they weren't...they never really are...  They are reflective of his opinions that manifested itself in his business practices.

So I really don't give a sh*t about him.  I really don't give a sh*t about precedence (because I don't think it will be much of one).  I really don't give a sh*t about his "freedom of speech" (because he has a history of abusing other's civil rights).

[Tugg Speedman]

I have zero problems with a private enterprise (the NBA) using whatever methods it deems necessary (including private recordings that go public) to police its own member owners.

THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! I work for a private company. If I am caught by that company saying something like Sterling did, I will be fired immediately. It will not matter that I have a constitutional right to say it. It will not matter that "it's not a crime to be an a-hole." All that matters is the private enterprise that employs me didn't like what I said.

When Sterling became an owner, he signed documents giving the NBA the power to do exactly what is being done to him now. From everything I've read, the NBA should have done something a lot sooner. It seems David Stern was the ultimate enabler.

Oh, and you are right about what Cuban said. However, you conveniently left out that Cuban later added that he was 100% behind Silver and the penalties.

So if you go home tonight, have a few cocktails and your wife baits you into an argument (not physical fight) and you say some inappropriate things (as EVERYONE does in this situation) and the next morning she marches down to your bosses office with her iPhone and plays the recording, you will just quietly, and without protest, clean out your office and leave for good?  And you will think this was a completely appropriate punishment?

Is this the world we now live in?

[mu_hilltopper]

Sterling is now a toxic pariah, shunned by everyone who can't be associated with the scarlet R, which, as the citizenry can now see, leads to utter, swift condemnation.    He can't own a team.  Any business that he owns or associated with must divest.  No one can risk being seen in public with him. 

Sure, Sterling will have his $1b sale proceeds.  But he might as well bury it in his back yard.  He won't even be able to give it away, as charities would need to return the check.  His punishment is, roughly, solitary confinement until he dies.  (exaggeration, but with much truth.)

But really, the issue isn't what he said in the end.  It really is more about what he has done over the course of his career to use his power to inflict real harm on a group of people because of their race.

I find that to be a dodge.  All the other items that've come out in the past few days were mostly documented, and didn't draw this nuclear repercussion.   "straw that broke the camel's back" .. maybe.  But it's reasonable that 99.99% of the planet didn't know squat about his prior behavior, (and if they did, they did nothing about it) which means most are reacting to the private tape alone.

[willie warrior]

Yeah....poor Donald Sterling is ruined because he will be forced to sell his team for 100 times the value at which he paid for it.  My heart goes out to him.

But really, the issue isn't what he said in the end.  It really is more about what he has done over the course of his career to use his power to inflict real harm on a group of people because of their race.  If his words were in a vacuum, I might agree with you.  But they weren't...they never really are...  They are reflective of his opinions that manifested itself in his business practices.

So I really don't give a sh*t about him.  I really don't give a sh*t about precedence (because I don't think it will be much of one).  I really don't give a sh*t about his "freedom of speech" (because he has a history of abusing other's civil rights).

Sultan--I agree with you on most of this except the part of precedence, but that can be left to wait and see. I also agree with the opinion that it is about his entire career-- but that ain't what Silver said! He said it was not about past incidents. I do not know enough about all of his opinions/beliefs. The NBA comes out of this looking like hypocrites also. Now Sterling can kick back and wait for what he considers a "fair offer". And guess what, if the offers become akin to a fire sale, he can turn them down, forcing the NBA to buy him out. Wonder if the players union will kick a third of a billion to help the NBA out?

[mikekinsellaMVP]

So if you go home tonight, have a few cocktails and your wife baits you into an argument (not physical fight) and you say some inappropriate things (as EVERYONE does in this situation) and the next morning she marches down to your bosses office with her iPhone and plays the recording, you will just quietly, and without protest, clean out your office and leave for good?  And you will think this was a completely appropriate punishment?

Is this the world we now live in?

I do not have a history where the inflammatory remarks to my wife are corroborated by hostile working conditions I've created or a lawsuit brought against me by the federal government.  You're looking at this like it's a first-time offense when it is in fact the proverbial straw on the camel's back.  I think you and I do share a concern here: according to California law, the only crime commited in this bizarre story was perpetrated by the girlfriend, not Sterling.  I don't have a problem with the ownership booting him -- they have their own constitution (which in your example above, I don't fall under the jurisdiction of.)  I have a problem with him getting booted now, using illegally obtained evidence from a vengeful girlfriend instead of the MOUNTAIN of evidence that could have sent him packing years ago.

[willie warrior]

So if you go home tonight, have a few cocktails and your wife baits you into an argument (not physical fight) and you say some inappropriate things (as EVERYONE does in this situation) and the next morning she marches down to your bosses office with her iPhone and plays the recording, you will just quietly, and without protest, clean out your office and leave for good?  And you will think this was a completely appropriate punishment?

Is this the world we now live in?

It is getting close to that. The Feds are already pushing to monitor e-mails for "hate speech". One person's "hate speech" is another's opinion. Even Cuban knows that.

[willie warrior]

I do not have a history where the inflammatory remarks to my wife are corroborated by hostile working conditions I've created or a lawsuit brought against me by the federal government.  You're looking at this like it's a first-time offense when it is in fact the proverbial straw on the camel's back.  I think you and I do share a concern here: according to California law, the only crime commited in this bizarre story was perpetrated by the girlfriend, not Sterling.  I don't have a problem with the ownership booting him -- they have their own constitution (which in your example above, I don't fall under the jurisdiction of.)  I have a problem with him getting booted now, using illegally obtained evidence from a vengeful girlfriend instead of the MOUNTAIN of evidence that could have sent him packing years ago.

Yeah--and Silver said it is not about past incidents. Sterling gets booted for his opinions and Silver defends it with lies. Let the legal teams line up. This one will be very interesting.

[mu_hilltopper]

Let the legal teams line up. This one will be very interesting.

On the other hand, can a legal team represent Silver without being dropped/forced to boycott by consumers/by other clients?

[ChicosBailBonds]

The Doyers and the Clippers are apples and oranges. The Clippers are a second rate franchise. This is the most they have ever been talked about in their history. the Lakers are LA. The Clips will not get the numbers being thrown around on the board. At the end of the day, they are Still the Clippers, the "other" basketball team.

I do not disagree with you, but it still takes just one guy to show how big his wiener is or compensate for how small it is to get crazy dollars.

Here are those already mentioned in the LA Times as having public interest

David Geffen
Magic Johnson + Guggenheim group
Floyd Mayweather
Oscar De La Hoya
Patrick Soon-Shiong

That's some crazy $$ with most of those guys.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

Yeah--and Silver said it is not about past incidents. Sterling gets booted for his opinions and Silver defends it with lies. Let the legal teams line up. This one will be very interesting.

A few months into the job and you expect him to throw his predecessor under the bus?  He was saving face for Stern -- I don't like it but I'm not terribly surprised.

Here are those already mentioned in the LA Times as having public interest

David Geffen
Magic Johnson + Guggenheim group
Floyd Mayweather
Oscar De La Hoya
Patrick Soon-Shiong

That's some crazy $$ with most of those guys.

I laughed when I saw his name pop up last night.  Look up his rant about Manny Pacquiao.  Can't imagine the league views Pretty Boy Floyd as an improvement over Sterling.

[willie warrior]

On the other hand, can a legal team represent Silver without being dropped/forced to boycott by consumers/by other clients?

Hey, we are talking about legal teams here. Don't you believe that there is one out there that will take the money? And then there will be the Bimbo's team, the NBA's team, Sterling's wifes, Doc's to get out of his contract, and the teams representing Magic and others in their offers. Hell, think what this will do for Califoria's economy--Lord knows they need it.

[MU82]

So if you go home tonight, have a few cocktails and your wife baits you into an argument (not physical fight) and you say some inappropriate things (as EVERYONE does in this situation) and the next morning she marches down to your bosses office with her iPhone and plays the recording, you will just quietly, and without protest, clean out your office and leave for good?  And you will think this was a completely appropriate punishment?

Is this the world we now live in?

Although this is such a farfetched hypothetical that I probably should just ignore it, I won't.

Would I be pleased? No. Would I be pissed? Yes. Would my wife and I probably be headed for either divorce court or at least counseling? Sure. Would I think the punishment was appropriate? Probably not. Would I protest? Maybe.

Would I have recourse? Nope.

And I wouldn't even be able to sell my stake in the company for $1 billion.

That about covers it. Satisfied?

Now ... that doesn't change my opinion on the real, non-hypothetical Sterling case one iota. He's a serial racist who was caught being even more racist than usual. I don't feel sorry for him, I don't feel he has been unjustly vilified and I applaud Silver and his fellow owners for finally taking out the trash.

[ChicosBailBonds]

A few months into the job and you expect him to throw his predecessor under the bus?  He was saving face for Stern -- I don't like it but I'm not terribly surprised.

I laughed when I saw his name pop up last night.  Look up his rant about Manny Pacquiao.  Can't imagine the league views Pretty Boy Floyd as an improvement over Sterling.

Agree, plus he loves to gamble.

Point was there are a lot of people swinging their junk right now to get in, question is how smart will they be in terms of price.

[MU82]

I find it interesting that an owner who has a private conversation involving racist comments = essentially being kicked out of the league.

But players committing assault, rape, whatever other crimes = fines, possible jail time, but, more importantly, NOT kicked out of the league (with a few minor exceptions)

The difference, from what I see, is Sterling's situation was threatening the organization's profits.

I find it interesting that folks keep wanting to come back to these kinds of comparisons.

First, there is little similarity. A player is not in a position of power the same way an owner is. A player who is a bigot -- or even a rapist -- can't make decisions that affect an entire organization.

Second, you say there have been "a few minor exceptions" regarding player punishment. Well, isn't Sterling an exception? In the history of the NBA, exactly one owner has received a lifetime ban. If that isn't an exception, I don't know what is.

Third, yes, of course Sterling's situation affects the organization's profits. Sterling signed up to be part of that organization. He certainly benefited from the profits he received being part of the organization. He agreed to the organization's rules. He seemingly broke one of the rules and now he has to deal with the punishment in accordance to the rules to which he agreed.

A private organization that has a major black presence does not want an owner who is clearly prejudiced against blacks. I don't see how this is even an issue. To me, the main issue is why the NBA didn't do something about Sterling sooner, because it sure sounds like he gave the league just cause. I agree with those who would like to see Stern have to answer to this -- maybe he'd be forced to return some of his bazillion-dollar severance.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have zero problems with a private enterprise (the NBA) using whatever methods it deems necessary (including private recordings that go public) to police its own member owners.

THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! I work for a private company. If I am caught by that company saying something like Sterling did, I will be fired immediately. It will not matter that I have a constitutional right to say it. It will not matter that "it's not a crime to be an a-hole." All that matters is the private enterprise that employs me didn't like what I said.

When Sterling became an owner, he signed documents giving the NBA the power to do exactly what is being done to him now. From everything I've read, the NBA should have done something a lot sooner. It seems David Stern was the ultimate enabler.

Oh, and you are right about what Cuban said. However, you conveniently left out that Cuban later added that he was 100% behind Silver and the penalties.

Mark has no choice, but he knows the slippery slope is problematic. 

I think your first sentence creates an incredibly dangerous precedent.  Things are said all the time in private that out of context could be construed different ways.  Not the case in the Sterling example, but in other examples the amount of mischief this opens up is an issue.  Say an owner in private said "Silver is an idiot" and that comes out.  Maybe owner was talking about Silver being an idiot on a particular issue, but not as a whole, but that context isn't there.  Say an owner makes a remark about a certain player, same type of situation, and all of a sudden people are screaming race, or whatever.

[Tugg Speedman]

I do not have a history where the inflammatory remarks to my wife are corroborated by hostile working conditions I've created or a lawsuit brought against me by the federal government. You're looking at this like it's a first-time offense when it is in fact the proverbial straw on the camel's back.  I think you and I do share a concern here: according to California law, the only crime commited in this bizarre story was perpetrated by the girlfriend, not Sterling.  I don't have a problem with the ownership booting him -- they have their own constitution (which in your example above, I don't fall under the jurisdiction of.)  I have a problem with him getting booted now, using illegally obtained evidence from a vengeful girlfriend instead of the MOUNTAIN of evidence that could have sent him packing years ago.

So his large real estate company was busted in racial discrimination.  Elgin Baylor lost, repeat lost, his lawsuit for racial discrimination.  Why does this count?  All this combined with some second-hand hearsay comments?

Look I'm not defending the guy, I trying to understand what line was drawn to rise to the level of forcing him to sell (severely punished yes, but lifetime ban and forced sale?).  


How about these owners?  How many of them should get voted out at the same meeting with Sterling?

How about Herb Simon, the owner of the Pacers?  He owns Simon Group, a large mall developer.  In 2011 the EEOC charged that Latino janitors working for the company were subjected to daily verbal attacks because  of their national origin.  Simon is just as bad as Sterling.  Why are we not asking Larry Bird why he accepts a paycheck from Simon?

How about Glen Taylor, the owner of the Timberwolves?  He owns Taylor Corporation that employs 15,000 headquartered in Mankato MN.  His company was sued for Sex Discrimination for passing over women for a promotion.  They settled out of court.  How can he be allowed to own an NBA team?

How about Cavaliers Owners Dan Gilbert?  He owns Quicken Loans.  Quicken lost a lawsuit for fraud and high pressure sales in that the pressured poor people (some minorities) into take out inappropriate mortgages and they lost their homes during the financial crisis.  How can he keep his team?  Isn't this worse than Sterling's words?

How about Mickey Arison the Miami Heat Owner?  He owns Carnival Cruise lines and they had multiple incident of ships breaking leaving people without power, food, bagging their own sh!t and getting sick.  They are bogged down in multi lawsuits over this.  How can LeBron accept a paycheck form this guy?  How can NBA owners allow him to own a team?

How about Brooklyn Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov?  The guy is a Russian Oligarch, running Norilsk Nickel and a few years ago 60 Minutes did a profile of him (before he was Nets owner) about the sleazy things he and his companies did.  He is also a powder keg waiting to explode.

Mark Cuban was convicted of insider trading last year.  He's a criminal, why not vote him out?  Why is the NBA allowing criminals to run their teams (see Prokhorov too).


I could go on and on with virtually every owner in the NBA.  If you want, they can all be made to look as bad as Sterling.   You really want to open this Pandora's box?

[MU82]

Mark has no choice, but he knows the slippery slope is problematic. 

I think your first sentence creates an incredibly dangerous precedent.  Things are said all the time in private that out of context could be construed different ways.  Not the case in the Sterling example, but in other examples the amount of mischief this opens up is an issue.  Say an owner in private said "Silver is an idiot" and that comes out.  Maybe owner was talking about Silver being an idiot on a particular issue, but not as a whole, but that context isn't there.  Say an owner makes a remark about a certain player, same type of situation, and all of a sudden people are screaming race, or whatever.

Of course Cuban had a choice. He could have not tweeted anything. He didn't have to offer the slippery slope quote or the "I agree 100%" quote. But he couldn't help himself. He's an attention addict.

Re-reading my first sentence, I don't like it, either. But I dislike it for a somewhat different reason than you state. I say "using whatever methods it deems necessary," but I certainly don't condone torture, blackmail, bribery and other illegal methods.

Otherwise, I am content to see what becomes of this going forward. I agree that context is important. I don't think there was any doubt about the context of Sterling's message. We won't know how all of this plays out until there are more instances.

I think my record as a poster shows that I'm not a big hypothetical-situation guy. So far, no other owner HAS been caught this way. And Marquette DID beat Davidson. And Marquette DID beat Holy Cross. I don't see the value in asking, "What if Cuban says so-and-so tomorrow?" or "How would Buzz be regarded if we lost to Davidson?" Or "Would Crean still be a college coach if we lost to Holy Cross?"

Hypotheticals, to me, represent arguing for the sake of it, and I don't enjoy doing that.

[LegalEagle15]

The slippery slope is this: according to the laws of private associations an association must apply its own rules consistently. A decision cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith. The consistent application of Silver's ruling now may include the punishment of NBA owners for things said in private. However, because players are also members of that association, this rule will in the future also apply to them. In a sense, the NBA has now created legal precedent to follow.

There are other elements to the laws of private associations but from a precedence standpoint those are the most pertinent. Application of league by-laws now includes lifetime bans for things said in the confines of a private conversation. Granted, what he said was bigoted and moronic and the league had cause to get rid of him years ago, but it will be interesting to see if down the road this ruling gets applied in other contexts.

[MU82]

The slippery slope is this: according to the laws of private associations an association must apply its own rules consistently. A decision cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith. The consistent application of Silver's ruling now may include the punishment of NBA owners for things said in private. However, because players are also members of that association, this rule will in the future also apply to them. In a sense, the NBA has now created legal precedent to follow.

There are other elements to the laws of private associations but from a precedence standpoint those are the most pertinent. Application of league by-laws now includes lifetime bans for things said in the confines of a private conversation. Granted, what he said was bigoted and moronic and the league had cause to get rid of him years ago, but it will be interesting to see if down the road this ruling gets applied in other contexts.

Players are protected by entirely different documents -- those collectively bargained.

Players are not in positions of power. It's not good if a player is a bigot, but that player is not the one who hires and promotes personnel people, secretaries and other players. That player's viewpoint can expose him as a jerk, but it won't affect who gets hired as the P.A. announcer.

I believe the league would have great difficulty banning a player for life even if the player went on TV and said the exact same thing Sterling did. The union and courts would protect that player. Hell, the league couldn't even give an extreme penalty to Sprewell, who physically assaulted his coach.

As for owners, yes, there certainly might be a slippery slope here involving them. Only time will tell.