This is the World That We Live In

[CuseFaninVT]

OK, fair enough. But again, is anybody able to define what exactly the "crime" was that merited the punishment? The best I've been able to pull from the presser is that Sterling shared "hateful opinions," "views... deeply offensive and harmful,"and "sentiments... contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that for the foundation of our... league" in a private setting that later became public.

That seems very imbalanced. He said something racist, which given his past isn't surprising (again, a past that was ignored when considering this punishment according to Silver). However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence brought forward at this time that his franchise is actually run in a racist manner. Does that not matter? Maybe what the NBA and public opinion is saying here is that there's no difference between what you say and what you do.

I think the NBA has a burden here to be clear.

I think the reality is that Sterling lost his protector when Buss died and Silver can finally do something the NBA has likely wanted to do for many years but feared the legal fees without this smoking gun. I feel no sympathy for him - he brought everything on himself. He said the things we heard. He cheated on his wife with a freakish looking woman who was then sued by his wife for 1.8 million. Money he knows she doesn't have so where did he expect her to find money to fight off his wife?

Can you imagine the backlash if the NBA only gave him a fine and all the games were actually cancelled last night? They didn't want it.

I'm not sure I see the NBA burden that you do. I don't believe he has as many legal remedies as many here believe.

 

[NineOneSeven]

OK, fair enough. But again, is anybody able to define what exactly the "crime" was that merited the punishment? The best I've been able to pull from the presser is that Sterling shared "hateful opinions," "views... deeply offensive and harmful,"and "sentiments... contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that for the foundation of our... league" in a private setting that later became public.

That seems very imbalanced. He said something racist, which given his past isn't surprising (again, a past that was ignored when considering this punishment according to Silver). However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence brought forward at this time that his franchise is actually run in a racist manner. Does that not matter? Maybe what the NBA and public opinion is saying here is that there's no difference between what you say and what you do.

I think the NBA has a burden here to be clear.

The problem is that what you say is often backed up by what you do. You can say "they're just words" all day long, but naturally, if you don't like something, your actions will tend to reflect it. If I say I hate cheeseburgers, I'm instinctively going to treat them differently than hot dogs. But who the hell hates cheeseburgers?

You subconsciously walk the talk.

 

[AirForceOrange]

OK, fair enough. But again, is anybody able to define what exactly the "crime" was that merited the punishment? The best I've been able to pull from the presser is that Sterling shared "hateful opinions," "views... deeply offensive and harmful,"and "sentiments... contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that for the foundation of our... league" in a private setting that later became public.

That seems very imbalanced. He said something racist, which given his past isn't surprising (again, a past that was ignored when considering this punishment according to Silver). However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence brought forward at this time that his franchise is actually run in a racist manner. Does that not matter? Maybe what the NBA and public opinion is saying here is that there's no difference between what you say and what you do.

I think the NBA has a burden here to be clear.

It all depends on what the NBA constitution says. I believe they do have a stipulation concerning finances and effects to the NBA/other teams...which if there is a stipulation like this, then they would be able to vote him out as there is already plenty of proof that this is affected the NBA brand and income and well as other teams. Now I have no idea what the constitution says and and am not lawyer...just trying speculating a bit and trying to apply some common sense.

 

[bevosu]

This thread should be on the off topic board. I know it's off season and slow, but ???

 

[AirForceOrange]

This thread should be on the off topic board. I know it's off season and slow, but ???

Nah...it's SU basketball related...here's how:

NBA owner - NBA - SU Bball players in NBA - SU Bball players in NBA draft

 

[NineOneSeven]

There are some hilarious memes that have come out after this. Hilarious.

 

[PoppyHart]

This thread should be on the off topic board. I know it's off season and slow, but ???

C'mon man, Wes Johnson plays in the SAME building as the Clip joint.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The problem is that what you say is often backed up by what you do. You can say "they're just words" all day long, but naturally, if you don't like something, your actions will tend to reflect it. If I say I hate cheeseburgers, I'm instinctively going to treat them differently than hot dogs. But who the hell hates cheeseburgers?

You subconsciously walk the talk.

OK, again, fair enough. If this is about racism, what is the specific racist action Sterling took in this case?

 

[NineOneSeven]

OK, again, fair enough. If this is about racism, what is the specific racist action Sterling took in this case?

there's the kicker.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

there's the kicker.

That's what I'm saying!

 

[Ozcuse]

OK, again, fair enough. If this is about racism, what is the specific racist action Sterling took in this case?

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Sterling said that he didn't want his mistress bringing black men to Clippers games. Now if he didn't want his mistress bringing any men, that would be one thing but he specifically said black men.

That would give me the impression that Mr. Sterling is not a fan of black men, and does not want them in his building unless they are working for him.

I wonder if he shares Mr. Bundy's thoughts that maybe slavery was a good thing.


Also, one more thing if you don't think he's just a little bit racist...

From the tape transcript:

DS: It's the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.

V: So do you have to treat them like that too?

DS: The white Jews, there's white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?

V: And are the black Jews less than the white Jews?

DS: A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.

V: And is that right?

DS: It isn't a question—we don't evaluate what's right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.

V: But shouldn't we take a stand for what's wrong? And be the change and the difference?

DS: I don't want to change the culture, because I can't. It's too big and too [unknown].

V: But you can change yourself.

DS: I don't want to change. If my girl can't do what I want, I don't want the girl. I'll find a girl that will do what I want! Believe me. I thought you were that girl—because I tried to do what you want. But you're not that girl.

 

[longislandcuse]

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Sterling said that he didn't want his mistress bringing black men to Clippers games. Now if he didn't want his mistress bringing any men, that would be one thing but he specifically said black men.

That would give me the impression that Mr. Sterling is not a fan of black men, and does not want them in his building unless they are working for him.

I wonder if he shares Mr. Bundy's thoughts that maybe slavery was a good thing.


Also, one more thing if you don't think he's just a little bit racist...

From the tape transcript:

DS: It's the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.

V: So do you have to treat them like that too?

DS: The white Jews, there's white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?

V: And are the black Jews less than the white Jews?

DS: A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.

V: And is that right?

DS: It isn't a question—we don't evaluate what's right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.

V: But shouldn't we take a stand for what's wrong? And be the change and the difference?

DS: I don't want to change the culture, because I can't. It's too big and too [unknown].

V: But you can change yourself.

DS: I don't want to change. If my girl can't do what I want, I don't want the girl. I'll find a girl that will do what I want! Believe me. I thought you were that girl—because I tried to do what you want. But you're not that girl.

That's some warped thinking and man, I can't deal with V Stiviano.. I wish it was someone else who conducted this differently but still exposed him because she is so unbelievably disgusting and annoying.

 

[PoppyHart]

OK, again, fair enough. If this is about racism, what is the specific racist action Sterling took in this case?

I think people are assuming this is the applicable provision from the by-laws for taking the team away:

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

Sterling apparently invoked the rule that stated that he could hand down any punishment, when a specific punishment was not already set forth in the by laws, that is in the "best interests" of the league.

In addition to the questions I raised earlier in the thread, I would add:

Sterling is alleged to have authorized, or at least been aware of, the recording b/c he has a tendency to forget things. Can a person in a progressed state of dementia, Alzheimer's, or other brain dysfunction "willfully" violate rules?

Removing him from day-to-day operations seems like an easier task than forcing a sale and banning him from all functions. Can you ban a Tourette's sufferer from a public place on the theory that he or she might blurt out something offensive at any given moment?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

That's what I'm saying!

Just out of curiosity, why do you believe there is need for an action of actual racism for the NBA to do what they are doing?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Just out of curiosity, why do you believe there is need for an action of actual racism for the NBA to do what they are doing?

Because we're not living in a pre-crime Minority Report society.

He said he didn't want his mistress coming to games with black men. Abhorrent on many levels, yes. But do we actually have evidence that he prevented someone from coming to Clippers games because of their race? I don't believe we do. I think that distinction matters.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that Sterling said that he didn't want his mistress bringing black men to Clippers games. Now if he didn't want his mistress bringing any men, that would be one thing but he specifically said black men.

That would give me the impression that Mr. Sterling is not a fan of black men, and does not want them in his building unless they are working for him.

If that's what this is about, what actual action has he taken to prevent black men from going to his games?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Because we're not living in a pre-crime Minority Report society.

He said he didn't want his mistress coming to games with black men. Abhorrent on many levels, yes. But do we actually have evidence that he prevented someone from coming to Clippers games because of their race? I don't believe we do. I think that distinction matters.

I think what you are talking about is an actual criminal act, well maybe not criminal, but actionable in a court by another person. Maybe the league should have waited, but given that the players weren't going to, I'd say they really had no choice.

By the way, I'm not looking past the overall point that moqui brought up with this thread. I just heard something about another owner donating money to fight gay marriage. I guess since there is only one openly gay player this won't rise to the level that Sterling did, but we just don't know what will happen these days. Tough times to be a rich white guy who owns a basketball team I guess (SARCASM definitely intended).

 

[CuseFaninVT]

If that's what this is about, what actual action has he taken to prevent black men from going to his games?

He should have said unless they were working for him, or paying too much money for a ticket for the privilege of watching an NBA game.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think what you are talking about is an actual criminal act, well maybe not criminal, but actionable in a court by another person. Maybe the league should have waited, but given that the players weren't going to, I'd say they really had no choice.

By the way, I'm not looking past the overall point that moqui brought up with this thread. I just heard something about another owner donating money to fight gay marriage. I guess since there is only one openly gay player this won't rise to the level that Sterling did, but we just don't know what will happen these days. Tough times to be a rich white guy who owns a basketball team I guess (SARCASM definitely intended).

Not talking about criminality actually. Actions > words.

KG and Amir Johnson smack each other around going for a rebound. KG looks at Johnson and says "I'm going to kill you." KG gets arrested for attempted murder, right?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Not talking about criminality actually. Actions > words.

KG and Amir Johnson smack each other around going for a rebound. KG looks at Johnson and says "I'm going to kill you." KG gets arrested for attempted murder, right?

A former Celtic? NEVER.

I see what you are saying, but I still believe the NBA is protecting the brand and expects the owners to project a better image (or at least not project their true selves). That's all this comes down to, and I don't think there is a slippery slope here. You can't have an owner openly racist in a league with 70+% black players. I don't believe this extends to gay marriage values, or abortion, or any of the other politically charge topics we are facing these days. Just the race issue.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I see what you are saying, but I still believe the NBA is protecting the brand and expects the owners to project a better image (or at least not project their true selves). That's all this comes down to, and I don't think there is a slippery slope here. You can't have an owner openly racist in a league with 70+% black players.

I'm ok with that. I expect some honesty from the NBA then about this being about brand protection.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Sometimes people try to hard to tie themselves into knots over slippery slopes, states of the world today, hells in handbaskets, and all that.

Thoroughly embarrassing a private business, causing financial damage to said private business, and being removed from said private business, is a tale as old as time.

Sometimes a racist jerk is just a racist jerk.

I think the issue Moqui is concerned about is the taking of private property - but if you want to see where a slippery slope started, just look at that Sup. Ct. decision Justice Souter authored a few years ago where he justified the government taking someone's private property (lake front or ocean front, I forget) and justified giving it to another private party because they promised to develop it and generate tax dollars. That would be like Congel being given the land in the town of Salina where those 27 businesses are located that he wanted the town to take for him under eminent domain. Stuff like that is anti-American and anti-freedom, if the property you own can be taken from you just because somebody's pissed at you, or somebody offers the government a better deal.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

I think people are assuming this is the applicable provision from the by-laws for taking the team away:

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

Sterling apparently invoked the rule that stated that he could hand down any punishment, when a specific punishment was not already set forth in the by laws, that is in the "best interests" of the league.

In addition to the questions I raised earlier in the thread, I would add:

Sterling is alleged to have authorized, or at least been aware of, the recording b/c he has a tendency to forget things. Can a person in a progressed state of dementia, Alzheimer's, or other brain dysfunction "willfully" violate rules?

Removing him from day-to-day operations seems like an easier task than forcing a sale and banning him from all functions. Can you ban a Tourette's sufferer from a public place on the theory that he or she might blurt out something offensive at any given moment?

If its in their general "safety" or well being - yes. If said tourettes person blurted out the n word, for whatever reason but lived in Brooklyn, it would stand to reason that their mental state could place them as a "ward of the state".

 

[IthacaMatt]

How does equal protection and the 14th amendment apply?

It doesn't. Nice thought, but Sterling and the Mozilla guy were not deprived of any rights due to government action or unequal application of the law.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

I'm ok with that. I expect some honesty from the NBA then about this being about brand protection.

Grotto - I see you are trying to make a point, and I do believe you have some merit in your argument. But lets be clear he runs a business unit as part of a larger corporation, organization or association that his contributes value. I would think the board of directors is acting within their rights, using the racial/discriminatory "reason", as it is creating negative value to the larger organization. So its sort of both ways.