Donald Sterling saga continues

[nmduke2001]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10843525/nba-investigating-offensive-audio-recording-allegedly-los-angeles-clippers-owner-donald-sterling

No real surprise but hopefully this will be the last straw and Adam Silver drops the hammer.

[Henderson]

And some context. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729) It's an ESPN Magazine feature on Sterling from 2009.

[g-money]

As a Warriors fan, I love the timing on this. Feel bad for JJ though.

Also: Love the way Doc Rivers responded (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:10844762).

[Des Esseintes]

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10843525/nba-investigating-offensive-audio-recording-allegedly-los-angeles-clippers-owner-donald-sterling

No real surprise but hopefully this will be the last straw and Adam Silver drops the hammer.

Can he be banned from basketball? I don't know the particulars on how much authority the commissioner wields in these circumstances or how it compares to what allowed baseball to ditch Steinbrenner for a few years, but suspension doesn't seem enough here.

[brevity]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the story is true, but I'm still confused about something in this story.

Does Donald Sterling's girlfriend have courtside or owner's box seating for these games? Because it sounds like Sterling might be asking her not to take advantage of her VIP status at the Forum by bringing minority boyfriends. I realize that the bare minimum of what he said is bizarre and offensive enough: he doesn't want her associating with minorities in public or in social media, even though she is a minority. But I wonder if most people are making a big logical leap from "I don't want your minority boyfriends in my owner's box" to "I don't want any racial minorities to attend Clippers games."

We may never know what he meant, and it may not matter in the long run, but those interpretations are different. Both statements would be racist, but the latter is also financial suicide.

[MartyClark]

Can he be banned from basketball? I don't know the particulars on how much authority the commissioner wields in these circumstances or how it compares to what allowed baseball to ditch Steinbrenner for a few years, but suspension doesn't seem enough here.

I don't remember much of the Steinbrenner situation but I'm wondering, how do you ban an owner? What does that mean? He still owns the team, regardless of whether he is banned from active management decisions. Based on this guy's history, the franchise may benefit from him being barred from management decisions.

I'm not sure that I actually understand the relationship between individual team owners and the NBA. Mark Cuban could probably explain it to me.

[jimsumner]

Marge Schott might be a better analog than Steinbrenner. Her pro-Nazi views got her suspended and she eventually sold her share of the Reds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/obituaries/02CND-SCHOTT.html

[Atlanta Duke]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the story is true, but I'm still confused about something in this story.

It will be 9 minutes of your life you will not get back but listening to the TMZ audio is interesting (at least to me).

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/

Anytime someone is recording a conversation it presumably it is not just to have a keepsake - the girlfriend starts the conversation with the observation "I wish I could change the color of my skin" and it goes from there.

My bet is someone was looking for a financial resolution to a relationship and when negotiations bogged down TMZ (which helpfully provides a transcript to track the audio) was contacted. What appeared to have Sterling chapped was appearances of exclusivity going public and a conversation where someone may have been drinking.

[Henderson]

Marge Schott might be a better analog than Steinbrenner. Her pro-Nazi views got her suspended and she eventually sold her share of the Reds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/obituaries/02CND-SCHOTT.html

It didn't help that she once called Eric Davis, "my 3 million dollar ...". [Doesn't the $3M figure sound quaint in retrospect?]

You're right; it's a good analogy, but there may be relevant differences between the NBA and MLB chartering documents describing the relationship between owners and the league front office and the power the latter has over the former.

[Atlanta Duke]

Girlfriend to Sterling around 7:30 on the recording

If it was Larry Bird would it have made a difference?":D

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/

[jimsumner]

It didn't help that she once called Eric Davis, "my 3 million dollar...". [Doesn't the $3M figure sound quaint in retrospect?]

You're right; it's a good analogy, but there may be relevant differences between the NBA and MLB chartering documents describing the relationship between owners and the league front office and the power the latter has over the former.

To name one difference, baseball is immune from anti-trust legislation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1290707&type=story

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/07/baseballs_con_game.html

http://blog.oup.com/2013/03/baseball-history-antitrust-law/

[ncexnyc]

I see Al and Jesse have gotten involved in this. Funny that when UNC pimps out a bunch of black players they aren't anywhere to be found. I guess heading out to L.A. is more fun and newsworthy than coming to Chapel Hill.

[Newton_14]

His comments are reprehensible, he can take that lame "out of context" comments and stick them where the sun don't shine. He should be banned for life from attending NBA games immediately and forced to sell his portion of the team. There is no place in our society for that type of racism, be it white against black, black against white, or any race against any other race. There should just be a zero tolerance policy against all forms of this.

His comments made me sick to my stomach. I feel sorry for JJ and his teammates, Doc Rivers and the entire staff. What a way to derail your team in a year when the Clips finally have a great chance to make a deep run in the NBA Playoffs.

Unbelievable. And though every single story refers to the young lady as his "girlfriend" when surely she is his "ex-girlfriend" right? Otherwise Sterling is even sicker than I thought. "Oh you can sleep with them just keep it private and don't bring them to games? Seriously? The man has serious issues.

[Duvall]

I see Al and Jesse have gotten involved in this. Funny that when UNC pimps out a bunch of black players they aren't anywhere to be found. I guess heading out to L.A. is more fun and newsworthy than coming to Chapel Hill.

Pimps out? Classy.

Donald Sterling has caused substantially more misery over the years than anything anyone has done in Chapel Hill. Try reading up before you post.

[Duvall]

To name one difference, baseball is immune from anti-trust legislation.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1290707&type=story

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/07/baseballs_con_game.html

http://blog.oup.com/2013/03/baseball-history-antitrust-law/

Does anyone know if the lack of an antitrust exemption limits the power of the NBA Commissioner to sanction owners for misconduct?

[jimsumner]

Does anyone know if the lack of an antitrust exemption limits the power of the NBA Commissioner to sanction owners for misconduct?

Great question for one of our lawyer types.

[ncexnyc]

Pimps out? Classy.

Donald Sterling has caused substantially more misery over the years than anything anyone has done in Chapel Hill. Try reading up before you post.

I'm glad you're fine with what's been taking place over at the hill. Maybe you're the one who should do some reading in regards to Al and Jesse.

[Atlanta Duke]

Does anyone know if the lack of an antitrust exemption limits the power of the NBA Commissioner to sanction owners for misconduct?

Lots of owners have been disciplined - Cuban is at $2 million in fines and counting

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/#ixzz2zztqDEAG

Stern suspended the Timberwolves owner for a year for salary cap violations

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/01/nba-joe-smith-illegal-contract-timberwolves

[Duvall]

Lots of owners have been disciplined - Cuban is at $2 million in fines and counting

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/#ixzz2zztqDEAG

But that's been mostly for comments about officiating and other game matters, right? Not sure if that matters.

In any case, it's hard to see how anything short of a lengthy suspension from team operations would affect someone with Sterling's money.

[Olympic Fan]

One the off-topic board, there is a thread started by a Cowboy fan about what a terrible owner Jerry Jones is ... with responses from Redskins fans about how awful their owner (Snyder) is.

They are both pretty bad, but Donald Sterling has to be far and away the worst owner going now -- even if you forget the nine-minute tape, you have to look at 33 years of ineptitude in commanding the franchise. The tape just puts it over the top -- about the only defense I can think of is to convince people that's not him on the tape.

BTW: Am I hearing it right -- he's berating his mixed-race mistress (black and Hispanic) for being photographed in public with Magic Johnson. Really?

[Atlanta Duke]

But that's been mostly for comments about officiating and other game matters, right? Not sure if that matters.

In any case, it's hard to see how anything short of a lengthy suspension from team operations would affect someone with Sterling's money.

See amended post above - Sterling presumably can be suspended just like Steinbrenner was exiled from Yankees operations in the 1990s

Selling the team probably is complicated by Sterling settling up on sales proceeds with his wife

In March, Sterling's wife, Rochelle, filed a lawsuit alleging the woman, identified as V. Stiviano, had an affair with her husband, according to Los Angeles' CBS affiliate reported in March.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-audio-recording-racist/8202135/

[RoyalBlue08]

One the off-topic board, there is a thread started by a Cowboy fan about what a terrible owner Jerry Jones is ... with responses from Redskins fans about how awful their owner (Snyder) is.

They are both pretty bad, but Donald Sterling has to be far and away the worst owner going now -- even if you forget the nine-minute tape, you have to look at 33 years of ineptitude in commanding the franchise. The tape just puts it over the top -- about the only defense I can think of is to convince people that's not him on the tape.

BTW: Am I hearing it right -- he's berating his mixed-race mistress (black and Hispanic) for being photographed in public with Magic Johnson. Really?

That's exactly what he is doing. Shocking this idiot can't run a successful NBA team.

[Duvall]

See amended post above - Sterling presumably can be suspended just like Steinbrenner was exiled from Yankees operations in the 1990s

But that's baseball. And we don't know if the other NBA owners would even *let* Silver punish one of their own for off-the-court issues.

[1999ballboy]

But I wonder if most people are making a big logical leap from "I don't want your minority boyfriends in my owner's box" to "I don't want any racial minorities to attend Clippers games.".

I sort of doubt it, and I also sort of fail to see the distinction. Both interpretations are bad enough to merit serious consequences and serious concerns from the LA Clippers about the type of guy who owns their team. Isn't it almost a worse thing if minorities are only allowed to sit among the peasants and not to sit with the high-and-mighty owner?

[Atlanta Duke]

But that's baseball. And we don't know if the other NBA owners would even *let* Silver punish one of their own for off-the-court issues.

Link was to Timberwolves owner being suspended for gaming the Smith contract

[Duvall]

Link was to Timberwolves owner being suspended for gaming the Smith contract

And that was a franchise management issue. Of course the owners would want the league to be able to punish owners that break rules that put the rest of them at a competitive disadvantage. I'm just not sure they would want the Commissioner passing judgment over their business outside the NBA.

[nmduke2001]

ESPN radio is already throwing around the idea of contracting the team and having a draft for all of the players.

Btw, Sterling has a wife and a mistress; money really does make anyone attractive.

[Duvall]

Silver. (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-adam-silver-donald-sterling-20140426,0,1682088.story#axzz303OQSpJI)


Silver would not comment on possible repercussions for Sterling should the league be satisfied it was his voice on the recording. They are believed to include a hefty fine or suspension, though a mandate for him to sell the team is considered unlikely.

“There are broad powers in place under the NBA’s constitution and bylaws that include a range of sanctions,” Silver said, “and all of those will be considered depending on the findings of our investigation.”

[Wander]

Does Donald Sterling's girlfriend have courtside or owner's box seating for these games? Because it sounds like Sterling might be asking her not to take advantage of her VIP status at the Forum by bringing minority boyfriends. I realize that the bare minimum of what he said is bizarre and offensive enough: he doesn't want her associating with minorities in public or in social media, even though she is a minority. But I wonder if most people are making a big logical leap from "I don't want your minority boyfriends in my owner's box" to "I don't want any racial minorities to attend Clippers games."

We may never know what he meant, and it may not matter in the long run, but those interpretations are different.

I agree with 1999ballboy above - I don't see anything relevantly different about those two interpretations. I think you're sort of outsmarting yourself. Barring something crazy like his voice being completely fabricated on the tape, the least bad interpretation is still bad enough such that he shouldn't have anything to do with basketball on any level.

[Des Esseintes]

And that was a franchise management issue. Of course the owners would want the league to be able to punish owners that break rules that put the rest of them at a competitive disadvantage. I'm just not sure they would want the Commissioner passing judgment over their business outside the NBA.

This is weird. Apparently, the NBA's constitution is a secret (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140426/donald-sterling-la-clippers-adam-silver-nba/?eref=sihp).

From legal guy Michael McCann on SI:

Forcibly removing Sterling from the NBA is unlikely to happen. The NBA's constitution, which is confidential, reportedly contains language permitting owners to authorize the league to sell a team without an owner's consent. The language, SI.com is told, only covers very limited circumstances and these circumstances concern team finances -- namely, when an owner can't pay his bills.

However:

Removing Sterling from the NBA, however, may not be necessary to effectively remove him from the Clippers. The NBA could suspend Sterling indefinitely and encourage him to sell the team. The Sacramento Kings were sold last year for an amount that equates to $534 million. It stands to reason the Clippers—which Sterling purchased in 1981 for $12.5 million—would be worth well in excess of $700 million.

The NBA could take a bolder step and take over the day-to-day operations of the Clippers, much like Major League Baseball did with the Dodgers and its embattled owner, Frank McCourt. The Dodgers, however, were experiencing payroll problems; there is no reason to believe the Clippers are experiencing any financial troubles.
The specter of Sterling's well-known litigiousness looms over those options. Regarding anti-trust:

The NBA must also be concerned about the possibility of Sterling suing the NBA and owners, such as for breach of the Clippers franchise agreement or for violations of federal and state antitrust law. NBA franchise agreements contain language that limit the ability of owners to sue the NBA and other owners. This language is known as "waiver of recourse", which means that an owner, by virtue of owning an NBA team, voluntarily waives away legal recourses he or she might otherwise have against the NBA and owners.

The waiver would likely aid the NBA in regards to a contract breach claim, but courts are generally unwilling to extend waivers to antitrust claims. A potential antitrust claim by Sterling against the NBA would be that his competitors (other NBA owners) and the NBA have conspired to expel him. By doing so, the logic goes, Sterling would have to sell his team at less than market value because prospective buyers would know that Sterling "has to" sell. As a result, he would attract lower bids. Under federal antitrust law, any damages Sterling receives would be automatically multiplied by three. He may have additional claims under California antitrust law.

[brevity]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that the story is true, but I'm still confused about something in this story.

Does Donald Sterling's girlfriend have courtside or owner's box seating for these games? Because it sounds like Sterling might be asking her not to take advantage of her VIP status at the Forum by bringing minority boyfriends. I realize that the bare minimum of what he said is bizarre and offensive enough: he doesn't want her associating with minorities in public or in social media, even though she is a minority. But I wonder if most people are making a big logical leap from "I don't want your minority boyfriends in my owner's box" to "I don't want any racial minorities to attend Clippers games."

We may never know what he meant, and it may not matter in the long run, but those interpretations are different. Both statements would be racist, but the latter is also financial suicide.


I sort of doubt it, and I also sort of fail to see the distinction. Both interpretations are bad enough to merit serious consequences and serious concerns from the LA Clippers about the type of guy who owns their team. Isn't it almost a worse thing if minorities are only allowed to sit among the peasants and not to sit with the high-and-mighty owner?


I agree with 1999ballboy above - I don't see anything relevantly different about those two interpretations. I think you're sort of outsmarting yourself. Barring something crazy like his voice being completely fabricated on the tape, the least bad interpretation is still bad enough such that he shouldn't have anything to do with basketball on any level.

First, I called it the Forum, and it's the Staples Center. I regret the error.

You're probably both right in that either interpretation above is inexcusable and actionable by the Clippers and the NBA. Originally, I thought that an alternative interpretation should at least be considered because of the impending activist response. Community leaders have been planning to stage public protests based on a collective assumption that Sterling could ONLY mean that he didn't want any racial minorities attending Clippers games. I simply asked if they were jumping to the worst possible conclusion.

Well, as it turns out, The Question is Moot (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5999188/the_question_is_moot/).

I've since listened to the complete recording released by TMZ (linked by Atlanta Duke above, or YouTube version here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhT6d5fMhzI)). It's nice to know that millions of dollars really don't change the inner workings of a bad relationship. And I think there's enough overall sentiment on Sterling's part, based on everything he said, to support as broad an interpretation as desired. He goes so far beyond any sort of jealous boyfriend, anti-Laker, or don't-embarrass-me-at-work explanation that it's really pointless to try to parse any further.

[dukebluelemur]

His comments are reprehensible, he can take that lame "out of context" comments and stick them where the sun don't shine. He should be banned for life from attending NBA games immediately and forced to sell his portion of the team. There is no place in our society for that type of racism, be it white against black, black against white, or any race against any other race. There should just be a zero tolerance policy against all forms of this.



Maybe this goes too Public Policy, but it's clearly an overlapping area and I'm directly responding to your post.

This kind of opinion frankly scares me. More and more lately it seems as though the media and public opinion are being used as a pretty extreme form of censorship. Let me explain here. I feel pretty strongly that Donald Sterling is a terrible human being. His opinions are reprehensible and repulsive. But this country is founded on freedom of thought and we have to be really careful of where the line is between having terrible opinions and acting illegally on them. That's why we've see communist party candidates on ballots, and that's why that human excrement at Westburo baptist church is allowed to continue. Because just having a terrible opinion is not a crime here, and it scares the hell out of me to see people being punished for it. Even people I really do not agree with.
(This is a bit different, but the WORST examples I have seen of this are those cases where a member of the media pushes someone for a controversial opinion, then the media stirs up a storm of public hysteria, rounds up a social lynch mob, and demands they be punished for it. Chick-Fil-A and the Bachelorette instances come to mind. Paula Dean to a degree as well. Also that redneck duck guy. Demanding a person lose their livelihood because they naively gave an honest opinion that you disagree with is just downright scummy.)

My point is this, sure, he is racist, arrogant, horrible human being. Make your opinion of him felt in whatever way you like. If it's determined he broke or or later breaks the law, punish him. The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are. When you start talking about "Zero Tolerance" for someone's horrific opinions, it gives me the shivers, because I hear the footsteps of the thought police coming.

I'd quote Hall on Voltaire if it wasn't such a cliche.

[dukelifer]

Maybe this goes too Public Policy, but it's clearly an overlapping area and I'm directly responding to your post.

This kind of opinion frankly scares me. More and more lately it seems as though the media and public opinion are being used as a pretty extreme form of censorship. Let me explain here. I feel pretty strongly that Donald Sterling is a terrible human being. His opinions are reprehensible and repulsive. But this country is founded on freedom of thought and we have to be really careful of where the line is between having terrible opinions and acting illegally on them. That's why we've see communist party candidates on ballots, and that's why that human excrement at Westburo baptist church is allowed to continue. Because just having a terrible opinion is not a crime here, and it scares the hell out of me to see people being punished for it. Even people I really do not agree with.
(This is a bit different, but the WORST examples I have seen of this are those cases where a member of the media pushes someone for a controversial opinion, then the media stirs up a storm of public hysteria, rounds up a social lynch mob, and demands they be punished for it. Chick-Fil-A and the Bachelorette instances come to mind. Paula Dean to a degree as well. Also that redneck duck guy. Demanding a person lose their livelihood because they naively gave an honest opinion that you disagree with is just downright scummy.)

My point is this, sure, he is racist, arrogant, horrible human being. Make your opinion of him felt in whatever way you like. If it's determined he broke or or later breaks the law, punish him. The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are. When you start talking about "Zero Tolerance" for someone's horrific opinions, it gives me the shivers, because I hear the footsteps of the thought police coming.

I'd quote Hall on Voltaire if it wasn't such a cliche.

I agree. To me this is just sad. Here is a man who has not been isolated from the Black community. Here is a man who has interacted with successful, thoughtful, and benevolent people of all races and after 80 some years - cannot change his intrinsic belief system. Unfortunately, there are many people like him out there- some in powerful positions. I am not sure what the "punishment" should be for not changing a belief system. These were comments made in private that got out. I do not think he is going to change and he did not do anything illegal. People are entitled to their beliefs and others can decide how they wish to interact with those who do not share their beliefs. Doc Rivers is free to quit- or Blake can refuse to resign when the time comes. The NBA might want to get rid of Sterling for other reasons but I think using this one is a slippery slope.

[bob blue devil]

Maybe this goes too Public Policy, but it's clearly an overlapping area and I'm directly responding to your post.

This kind of opinion frankly scares me. More and more lately it seems as though the media and public opinion are being used as a pretty extreme form of censorship. Let me explain here. I feel pretty strongly that Donald Sterling is a terrible human being. His opinions are reprehensible and repulsive. But this country is founded on freedom of thought and we have to be really careful of where the line is between having terrible opinions and acting illegally on them. That's why we've see communist party candidates on ballots, and that's why that human excrement at Westburo baptist church is allowed to continue. Because just having a terrible opinion is not a crime here, and it scares the hell out of me to see people being punished for it. Even people I really do not agree with.
(This is a bit different, but the WORST examples I have seen of this are those cases where a member of the media pushes someone for a controversial opinion, then the media stirs up a storm of public hysteria, rounds up a social lynch mob, and demands they be punished for it. Chick-Fil-A and the Bachelorette instances come to mind. Paula Dean to a degree as well. Also that redneck duck guy. Demanding a person lose their livelihood because they naively gave an honest opinion that you disagree with is just downright scummy.)

My point is this, sure, he is racist, arrogant, horrible human being. Make your opinion of him felt in whatever way you like. If it's determined he broke or or later breaks the law, punish him. The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are. When you start talking about "Zero Tolerance" for someone's horrific opinions, it gives me the shivers, because I hear the footsteps of the thought police coming.

I'd quote Hall on Voltaire if it wasn't such a cliche.

i think your concern is misguided. the nba is not the legal system. within our country he is free to have the beliefs he wish and is protected - he won't be going to jail over this. however, he is unfit to have a place (such a high profile one at that) in an organization with a) such public importance/visibility and b) major business sensitivities to issues such as this. let's not overthink this one - he needs to be removed from the nba via any mechanism they have available.

[bob blue devil]

i think your concern is misguided. the nba is not the legal system. within our country he is free to have the beliefs he wish and is protected - he won't be going to jail over this. however, he is unfit to have a place (such a high profile one at that) in an organization with a) such public importance/visibility and b) major business sensitivities to issues such as this. let's not overthink this one - he needs to be removed from the nba via any mechanism they have available.

would he be fit to be a teacher? of course not.

[rocketeli]

Maybe this goes too Public Policy, but it's clearly an overlapping area and I'm directly responding to your post.

This kind of opinion frankly scares me. More and more lately it seems as though the media and public opinion are being used as a pretty extreme form of censorship. Let me explain here. I feel pretty strongly that Donald Sterling is a terrible human being. His opinions are reprehensible and repulsive. But this country is founded on freedom of thought and we have to be really careful of where the line is between having terrible opinions and acting illegally on them. That's why we've see communist party candidates on ballots, and that's why that human excrement at Westburo baptist church is allowed to continue. Because just having a terrible opinion is not a crime here, and it scares the hell out of me to see people being punished for it. Even people I really do not agree with.
(This is a bit different, but the WORST examples I have seen of this are those cases where a member of the media pushes someone for a controversial opinion, then the media stirs up a storm of public hysteria, rounds up a social lynch mob, and demands they be punished for it. Chick-Fil-A and the Bachelorette instances come to mind. Paula Dean to a degree as well. Also that redneck duck guy. Demanding a person lose their livelihood because they naively gave an honest opinion that you disagree with is just downright scummy.)

My point is this, sure, he is racist, arrogant, horrible human being. Make your opinion of him felt in whatever way you like. If it's determined he broke or or later breaks the law, punish him. The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are. When you start talking about "Zero Tolerance" for someone's horrific opinions, it gives me the shivers, because I hear the footsteps of the thought police coming.

I'd quote Hall on Voltaire if it wasn't such a cliche.

Absolutely. Thanks for posting this so I don't have to post something similar. BTW as with you I do NOT agree with anything I can think of that Donald Sterling has said or done, and he has always seemed like a nasty piece of work to me. But the acid test of freedom of speech is when we tolerate speech we don't agree with--and that's were most of the population has a hard time. Of course, I'm sure the NBA bylaws or whatever have some boilerplate about conduct detrimental to the organization and that it can be punished, and that's their business.

[Henderson]

And that was a franchise management issue. Of course the owners would want the league to be able to punish owners that break rules that put the rest of them at a competitive disadvantage. I'm just not sure they would want the Commissioner passing judgment over their business outside the NBA.

Although I agree with your primary point (It's different to the owners when it involves NBA business as opposed to non-NBA antics), this wasn't entirely without NBA context. Assuming that was Sterling, he did say he didn't want his girlfriend bringing her black acquaintances to his Clipper games. That's relevantly different from his previous racist remarks about ethnic groups living in his apartment buildings.

[bob blue devil]

Although I agree with your primary point (It's different to the owners when it involves NBA business as opposed to non-NBA antics), this wasn't entirely without NBA context. Assuming that was Sterling, he did say he didn't want his girlfriend bringing her black acquaintances to his Clipper games. That's relevantly different from his previous racist remarks about ethnic groups living in his apartment buildings.

if you were the owner of a child care business with a diverse client mix and your manager was generally known to be a racist and on record saying "Black tenants smell and attract vermin", would you deserve the right to remove him even though it was stated in a non-kindergarten context? Now, I know Sperling is an owner, not a manager, but he's not the owner of the nba and the analogy should hold. how about if you were hiring? don't you think you should be allowed to disqualify a candidate for that?

bottom line, like it or not, is that sometimes your role in society does not permit the harboring of certain views - either fit the role or find a new one that's more appropriate for your views. nba owner is not an appropriate role for a racist.

[richardjackson199]

Maybe Sterling should ask John Calipari how to make despicable racist comments, and move forward successfully with a slap on the wrist by the NBA...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4372086.html

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, and I believe Sterling should be banned from the NBA. It just brings to mind another example of Calipari's slimy history, but that guy is bulletproof.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Maybe this goes too Public Policy, but it's clearly an overlapping area and I'm directly responding to your post.

This kind of opinion frankly scares me. More and more lately it seems as though the media and public opinion are being used as a pretty extreme form of censorship. Let me explain here. I feel pretty strongly that Donald Sterling is a terrible human being. His opinions are reprehensible and repulsive. But this country is founded on freedom of thought and we have to be really careful of where the line is between having terrible opinions and acting illegally on them. That's why we've see communist party candidates on ballots, and that's why that human excrement at Westburo baptist church is allowed to continue. Because just having a terrible opinion is not a crime here, and it scares the hell out of me to see people being punished for it. Even people I really do not agree with.
(This is a bit different, but the WORST examples I have seen of this are those cases where a member of the media pushes someone for a controversial opinion, then the media stirs up a storm of public hysteria, rounds up a social lynch mob, and demands they be punished for it. Chick-Fil-A and the Bachelorette instances come to mind. Paula Dean to a degree as well. Also that redneck duck guy. Demanding a person lose their livelihood because they naively gave an honest opinion that you disagree with is just downright scummy.)

My point is this, sure, he is racist, arrogant, horrible human being. Make your opinion of him felt in whatever way you like. If it's determined he broke or or later breaks the law, punish him. The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are. When you start talking about "Zero Tolerance" for someone's horrific opinions, it gives me the shivers, because I hear the footsteps of the thought police coming.

I'd quote Hall on Voltaire if it wasn't such a cliche.

I agree that Sterling has a terrible opinion and in this country is entitled to it.

I also think that in this country exceptional basketball players and coaches do not have to work for someone with that opinion and would like to see the players refuse to play.

In the past I actually liked it that Sterling tried to run the team to make money and did not give big money long term contracts to players who proved to be not worth it. He may be a smart businessman but he is a lout.

I hope Adam Silver steps in quickly. Major suspension at the minimum.

SoCal

So

[sagegrouse]

Maybe this goes too Public Policy, but it's clearly an overlapping area and I'm directly responding to your post.

This kind of opinion frankly scares me. More and more lately it seems as though the media and public opinion are being used as a pretty extreme form of censorship. Let me explain here. I feel pretty strongly that Donald Sterling is a terrible human being. His opinions are reprehensible and repulsive. But this country is founded on freedom of thought and we have to be really careful of where the line is between having terrible opinions and acting illegally on them. That's why we've see communist party candidates on ballots, and that's why that human excrement at Westburo baptist church is allowed to continue. Because just having a terrible opinion is not a crime here, and it scares the hell out of me to see people being punished for it. Even people I really do not agree with.
(This is a bit different, but the WORST examples I have seen of this are those cases where a member of the media pushes someone for a controversial opinion, then the media stirs up a storm of public hysteria, rounds up a social lynch mob, and demands they be punished for it. Chick-Fil-A and the Bachelorette instances come to mind. Paula Dean to a degree as well. Also that redneck duck guy. Demanding a person lose their livelihood because they naively gave an honest opinion that you disagree with is just downright scummy.)

My point is this, sure, he is racist, arrogant, horrible human being. Make your opinion of him felt in whatever way you like. If it's determined he broke or or later breaks the law, punish him. The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are. When you start talking about "Zero Tolerance" for someone's horrific opinions, it gives me the shivers, because I hear the footsteps of the thought police coming.

I'd quote Hall on Voltaire if it wasn't such a cliche.

This is not a "freedom of opinion" issue as much as it is an "offensive opinion" threatening to cause irreparable harm to a business. The NBA depends on public goodwill for its continued existence; it depends on the offended minority for attendance and support; but its labor force predominantly belongs to this minority; and the labor force is unlikely to show up for work unless this guy is sent packing. Anyone could or would get fired for expressing these comments openly at work under similar circumstances.

[Des Esseintes]

This is not a "freedom of opinion" issue as much as it is an "offensive opinion" threatening to cause irreparable harm to a business. The NBA depends on public goodwill for its continued existence; it depends on the offended minority for attendance and support; but its labor force predominantly belongs to this minority; and the labor force is unlikely to show up for work unless this guy is sent packing. Anyone could or would get fired for expressing these comments openly at work under similar circumstances.

Yeah, this is not a "censorship" issue. That is absurd. For one thing, Donald Sterling would most definitely have preferred to keep his noxious views a secret from the general public. Nobody is talking about violating his protections under the Bill of Rights. He will continue to enjoy equal protection beneath this nation's laws. Probably better than "equal" protection since he has vast wealth--from a vast real estate empire run along racist principles (http://www.thenation.com/blog/179551/donald-sterling-slumlord-billionaire)--and can afford better lawyers than you or I. Donald Sterling has gotten the very best treatment from the American political and judicial system to this point in his 80-year-old life, so please let's not make his case yet another "thought police" martyrdoms. He has been a racist, in a well-known, way for a long time, and it did not prevent him from flourishing. What we are talking about now is whether in light of his distaste for black people in an NBA arena he should be allowed the privilege of owning an NBA team. Ain't nothing in the Constitution protects the right to own an NBA team. A franchise is a privately-owned enterprise in which the public feels a great stake. It is not censorship to want someone who at least approximates the values of the larger community sitting in an ownership role.

[Duvall]

Maybe this goes too Public Policy, but it's clearly an overlapping area and I'm directly responding to your post.

This kind of opinion frankly scares me. More and more lately it seems as though the media and public opinion are being used as a pretty extreme form of censorship. Let me explain here. I feel pretty strongly that Donald Sterling is a terrible human being. His opinions are reprehensible and repulsive. But this country is founded on freedom of thought and we have to be really careful of where the line is between having terrible opinions and acting illegally on them. That's why we've see communist party candidates on ballots, and that's why that human excrement at Westburo baptist church is allowed to continue. Because just having a terrible opinion is not a crime here, and it scares the hell out of me to see people being punished for it. Even people I really do not agree with.
(This is a bit different, but the WORST examples I have seen of this are those cases where a member of the media pushes someone for a controversial opinion, then the media stirs up a storm of public hysteria, rounds up a social lynch mob, and demands they be punished for it. Chick-Fil-A and the Bachelorette instances come to mind. Paula Dean to a degree as well. Also that redneck duck guy. Demanding a person lose their livelihood because they naively gave an honest opinion that you disagree with is just downright scummy.)

My point is this, sure, he is racist, arrogant, horrible human being. Make your opinion of him felt in whatever way you like. If it's determined he broke or or later breaks the law, punish him. The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are. When you start talking about "Zero Tolerance" for someone's horrific opinions, it gives me the shivers, because I hear the footsteps of the thought police coming.

I don't understand the point that you are trying to make here. I hope you aren't suggesting that Sterling should be free to have racist opinions, but that the rest of us should not be free to have an opinion on whether the NBA should continue to do business with Sterling as one of its franchise owners. Because that would be absurd.

Oh, and the next time you feel inclined to use the term "lynch mob" to describe people talking on the Internet, or anything short of an extrajudicial killing, you should strongly consider not doing that.

[Waynne]

Yeah, this is not a "censorship" issue. That is absurd. For one thing, Donald Sterling would most definitely have preferred to keep his noxious views a secret from the general public. Nobody is talking about violating his protections under the Bill of Rights. He will continue to enjoy equal protection beneath this nation's laws. Probably better than "equal" protection since he has vast wealth--from a vast real estate empire run along racist principles (http://www.thenation.com/blog/179551/donald-sterling-slumlord-billionaire)--and can afford better lawyers than you or I. Donald Sterling has gotten the very best treatment from the American political and judicial system to this point in his 80-year-old life, so please let's not make his case yet another "thought police" martyrdoms. He has been a racist, in a well-known, way for a long time, and it did not prevent him from flourishing. What we are talking about now is whether in light of his distaste for black people in an NBA arena he should be allowed the privilege of owning an NBA team. Ain't nothing in the Constitution protects the right to own an NBA team. A franchise is a privately-owned enterprise in which the public feels a great stake. It is not censorship to want someone who at least approximates the values of the larger community sitting in an ownership role.

This is exactly right; there are no First Amendment issues involved here. Sterling will never be prosecuted in a court of law for his ignorant expressions. Indeed the law protects his right to express whatever hateful expressions he wants, and he has freely exercised that right for many years. If the media, public, and the NBA censors him for this behavior, that's the way it's supposed to work in America.

[vick]

This is not a "freedom of opinion" issue as much as it is an "offensive opinion" threatening to cause irreparable harm to a business. The NBA depends on public goodwill for its continued existence; it depends on the offended minority for attendance and support; but its labor force predominantly belongs to this minority; and the labor force is unlikely to show up for work unless this guy is sent packing. Anyone could or would get fired for expressing these comments openly at work under similar circumstances.

While I largely agree with what you're saying, let's be accurate here: this tape isn't an expression of anything done "openly at work;" it was a recording of a private conversation. I don't really care a whole lot because of Sterling's long, long record of other sleazy behavior (both open and private), but we are in fact talking about "firing" someone based on a recording of a private conversation.

[kAzE]

I hope he gets pressured into selling the team. I just don't see how the organization could go up from here with a boss like Donald Sterling. How are they going to get free agents, or anyone, minority or not, to come work for that guy? How could you feel good about even going to games, knowing your money is going to that kind of person? It's mind boggling that someone could be so close minded and hypocritical, it's like he took a time machine to get here from the 1800s. What a complete idiot. Just sell the team . . . Seattle wants their Sonics back.

[blazindw]

We're starting to stray a little too close to PPB territory. Let's back away from that, please. Thanks.

[dukebluelemur]

I don't understand the point that you are trying to make here. I hope you aren't suggesting that Sterling should be free to have racist opinions, but that the rest of us should not be free to have an opinion on whether the NBA should continue to do business with Sterling as one of its franchise owners. Because that would be absurd.

Oh, and the next time you feel inclined to use the term "lynch mob" to describe people talking on the Internet, or anything short of an extrajudicial killing, you should strongly consider not doing that.

Some of you are exaggerating my post. I was responding specifically to the sentiment, in the post I quoted, that there was "no place in our society for that kind of racism" (referring to the comments he made) and that there should be a "zero tolerance policy" against it (presumably, contextually, societal-ly.) Of course you can call for the NBA to wash their hands of him. Marginalize him, ostracize him, but at a base level, he does have a place in our society and we do have to tolerate him having them.

And yes, "lynch mob" is a somewhat charged term. I thought about it for a while and unfortunately couldn't come up with another that really conveyed what I wanted to convey, it was late. For what it's worth, the dictionary I looked at includes a secondary definition (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/lynch-mob) "2 any group of angry people who want to take action that is not officially allowed."


Anyway, just wanted to clarify, as the mod said this is headed too PP so this will be my last post on the subject. If you have specific questions, feel free to drop me a message.

[Richard Berg]

Absolutely. Thanks for posting this so I don't have to post something similar. BTW as with you I do NOT agree with anything I can think of that Donald Sterling has said or done, and he has always seemed like a nasty piece of work to me. But the acid test of freedom of speech is when we tolerate speech we don't agree with--and that's were most of the population has a hard time.
Who is "we"? Last I checked, our most cherished guideline for freedom of speech begins "Congress shall make no law...". It places no such restriction on NBA bylaws, nor should it.

[Richard Berg]

We're starting to stray a little too close to PPB territory. Let's back away from that, please. Thanks.
Please excuse my post, this thread has moved quickly since I last refreshed the page.

[Atlanta Duke]

Clippers players send a message

The Clippers ran out of the tunnel for Game 4 of their first-round playoff series at Golden State on Sunday wearing their warm-up uniforms. They huddled together at center court and tossed their warm-ups to the ground and went through their pregame routine with their red Clippers' shirts on inside-out to hide the team's logo.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10848577/los-angeles-clippers-stage-silent-protest-donald-sterling-hide-team-logo

Link also includes a video of Magic Johnson on the ABC pregame show commenting on Sterling's remarks

I know the league would like Sterling to go away (and probably would not be brokenhearted if Golden State eliminated the Clippers). But forcing him to sell the franchise not only is something I doubt the league can force him to do - if it is at a fire sale price it arguably depresses the potential value of other franchises at a time the owners are ecstatic the Milwaukee Bucks just sold for $550 million after Forbes recently assigned the franchise a value of $405 million

Forbes values the Clippers at $575 million (up 34% in the last year), which presumably is low if a small market team like the Bucks just sold for nearly that much.

http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/#page:2_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

Adam Silver is going to earn his pay dealing with this mess.

[bob blue devil]

Some of you are exaggerating my post. I was responding specifically to the sentiment, in the post I quoted, that there was "no place in our society for that kind of racism" (referring to the comments he made) and that there should be a "zero tolerance policy" against it (presumably, contextually, societal-ly.) Of course you can call for the NBA to wash their hands of him. Marginalize him, ostracize him, but at a base level, he does have a place in our society and we do have to tolerate him having them.


i understand this point, yes. however, you also say



The NBA can certainly fine him as a member of their group. But it needs to be measured. When it comes to calling for punishment of this douchebag please please limit it to what he DOES, not the beliefs themselves, however bad they are.


which does not fit neatly into the narrative you are now seeking to construct.

[MartyClark]

This is a major distraction for the Clippers. They have not looked good today. This will be a huge test for Doc Rivers, who I admire. I don't think these guys play for their owner. They play for themselves, their teammates, their families and their financial future. I'd love to be inside the room and hear how Doc gets these players to look ahead and win the series.

[Waynne]

This is a major distraction for the Clippers. They have not looked good today. This will be a huge test for Doc Rivers, who I admire. I don't think these guys play for their owner. They play for themselves, their teammates, their families and their financial future. I'd love to be inside the room and hear how Doc gets these players to look ahead and win the series.

The Clips got blown out today, but if anyone can get the players to focus on the rest of the series, Doc Rivers can. I know Doc is under contract, but I wonder whether he will stay after the season ends.

[Atlanta Duke]

The Clips got blown out today, but if anyone can get the players to focus on the rest of the series, Doc Rivers can. I know Doc is under contract, but I wonder whether he will stay after the season ends.

No surprise he was asked about that

...coach Doc Rivers said he isn't sure what he would have to hear from Sterling to make him want to return next season.

"Don't know yet," Rivers said when asked if there were things he needed to hear from Sterling after an audio tape surfaced of Sterling purportedly making racist remarks to his girlfriend V. Stiviano. "I'm just going to leave it at that."

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10848577/los-angeles-clippers-stage-silent-protest-donald-sterling-hide-team-logo

[BD80]

He is despicable and deplorable on so many levels. BUT ... ain't nothing gonna happen. Perspective, NBA owners aren't paragons of virtue:

http://www.nj.com/ledger-dalessandro/index.ssf/2014/04/dalessandro_donald_sterlings_candid_moment_its_bus iness_as_usual_and_nba_business_is_often_ugly.html

Notice how nobody seems to care a whit that the issue arises by way of his mistress, and the Donald west is married.

Wonder if MJ would have so vociferous about marital infidelity?

Further, the NBA (ne David Stern) enabled Sterling's his antics:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140427/nba-donald-sterling-chris-paul-clippers-david-stern/

Say or do what you want, but players will still line up to take Sterling's money

[sagegrouse]

While I largely agree with what you're saying, let's be accurate here: this tape isn't an expression of anything done "openly at work;" it was a recording of a private conversation. I don't really care a whole lot because of Sterling's long, long record of other sleazy behavior (both open and private), but we are in fact talking about "firing" someone based on a recording of a private conversation.

True, but delete "openly at work" and I still stand by my statements.

[blazindw]

While I largely agree with what you're saying, let's be accurate here: this tape isn't an expression of anything done "openly at work;" it was a recording of a private conversation. I don't really care a whole lot because of Sterling's long, long record of other sleazy behavior (both open and private), but we are in fact talking about "firing" someone based on a recording of a private conversation.

That wouldn't be unprecedented at all. This happens all the time with TV shows that are cancelled because of private comments of one of the show's stars that become public. And that affects workers that would have nothing to do with the comments but just happen to work for the show. This also happens to normal people at their jobs in this day and age of social media.

[theAlaskanBear]

First of all, this is just the latest in a long line of sleazy behaviour by Donald Sterling

There was a housing discrimination lawsuit he settled for $2.7 million with the government where he was accused of not renting apartments to Hispanics and blacks.
There was a suit in 2006 by the Justice Department for allegations of housing discrimination in the Koreatown part of Los Angeles.
There was a suit by Clippers general manger Elgin Baylor for wrongful termination alleging racial and age discrimination after Baylor lost his job.

This is an owner who actively heckled his own point guard Baron Davis when he was on the court.

The NBA could overlook his misdeeds because the Clippers were a marginal and irrelevant team, and because his legal problems were not related to basketball (until the Elgin Baylor lawsuit). Not any more. Who will sign with the Clippers with DOnald Sterling as the owner? He has just driven his coach, star PG and other players to other teams when their contracts are up. If Doc Rivers doesn't return, then will Chris Paul try to force a trade?


A Clippers draft pick who could actually play was Kansas star Danny Manning. Manning didn’t last in LA. This might be because Sterling, according to Baylor, would grumble that he didn’t like being in a position where “I’m offering a lot of money for a poor black kid.” Baylor’s lawsuit claims the team has “egregious salary disparities” based on race. Baylor claims he was told to “induce African-American players to join the Clippers, despite the Clippers’ reputation of being unwilling to fairly treat and compensate African-American players.” Baylor says the owner, Donald Sterling, has a “pervasive and ongoing racist attitude.” It also stated that Sterling made clear to Baylor that hiring an African-American head coach was not his preference. This is why Baylor’s lawyers accuse Sterling of having a “vision of a Southern plantation–type structure.”


He also, according to his former GM Elgin Baylor, “would bring women into the locker room after games, while the players were showering, and make comments such as, ‘Look at those beautiful black bodies.’ I brought [player complaints] to Sterling’s attention, but he continued to bring women into the locker room.”

From the following article detailing Sterling's sordid history with the Clippers: http://www.thenation.com/blog/179551/donald-sterling-slumlord-billionaire#

It's past time for Sterling to go. I have no sympathy for the man, none whatsoever.

[SupaDave]

While I largely agree with what you're saying, let's be accurate here: this tape isn't an expression of anything done "openly at work;" it was a recording of a private conversation. I don't really care a whole lot because of Sterling's long, long record of other sleazy behavior (both open and private), but we are in fact talking about "firing" someone based on a recording of a private conversation.

There's this guy by the name of Richard Nixon...

[dukelifer]

There's this guy by the name of Richard Nixon...

Not sure that is what got him in trouble- actively covering up a crime or ordering its execution is a little different than talking about your racist belief system in private.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That wouldn't be unprecedented at all. This happens all the time with TV shows that are cancelled because of private comments of one of the show's stars that become public. And that affects workers that would have nothing to do with the comments but just happen to work for the show. This also happens to normal people at their jobs in this day and age of social media.

I would liken this to the Chick-fil-A controversy. If Sterling wants to say whatever he believes, he has a God given right to. And I, conversely, have the right to decide that he's a bigoted d-bag. Fans of the franchise have the right to boycott, protest, make a fuss, what-have-you. It isn't a First Amendment issue.

You have the right to state what you want, and people can judge you on behalf of that.

If I can't make judgments on you based on your stated comments/beliefs, what am I supposed to form opinions on?

This is tough... I want Sterling to go down in the ball of flames, but I want the players (JJ of course) to do well in the face of adversity. The league is in a very tough spot. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[vick]

True, but delete "openly at work" and I still stand by my statements.

Sure, don't disagree at all.


This also happens to normal people at their jobs in this day and age of social media.

This is true, but hardly an unambiguously positive development for society. But that's really going to veer into PPB so I'll just leave it at that.

[wavedukefan70s]

She should be barred also.she only had a problem with this when the money stopped.
This is pure speculation ofcourse .i believe he is guilty .i believe she is a gold digger that sides with the cause that pays the bills.this may be off base .why did he settle for that.it would seem with the kind of money he has.
He could have gotten more bang for his buck.no pun intended.

[Atlanta Duke]

She should be barred also.

I agree - if she owned a NBA franchise she should be forced to sell it.

[FerryFor50]

Our friends at deadspin have uncovered more...

http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249

[wavedukefan70s]

I agree - if she owned a NBA franchise she should be forced to sell it.

I was more or less refering to her use of facilities.
With the release of the new transcript.maybe not so much.

[Duke3517]

Are we for sure that the audio is not taken out of context or that was even him speaking? If it was him I completely disagree with what he said to be clear.

I watched a piece on sports center this morning by Jeremy Schaap which he states that he is "a terrible owner and an even worse person". I grew up in a very rural/highly racist area and have heard things a lot worse than what Mr. Sterling said. Not that I condone what he said but to just have these insane opinions about him is way too premature.

I will say this, if he is racist why would he own an NBA team when the majority of the NBA is minority.

[Des Esseintes]

Are we for sure that the audio is not taken out of context or that was even him speaking? If it was him I completely disagree with what he said to be clear.

I watched a piece on sports center this morning by Jeremy Schaap which he states that he is "a terrible owner and an even worse person". I grew up in a very rural/highly racist area and have heard things a lot worse than what Mr. Sterling said. Not that I condone what he said but to just have these insane opinions about him is way too premature.

I will say this, if he is racist why would he own an NBA team when the majority of the NBA is minority.
Can you provide a conceivable context that might make Sterling's comments acceptable? Further, which opinions expressed here or elsewhere about Sterling would you describe as "insane"?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Are we for sure that the audio is not taken out of context or that was even him speaking? If it was him I completely disagree with what he said to be clear.

I watched a piece on sports center this morning by Jeremy Schaap which he states that he is "a terrible owner and an even worse person". I grew up in a very rural/highly racist area and have heard things a lot worse than what Mr. Sterling said. Not that I condone what he said but to just have these insane opinions about him is way too premature.

I will say this, if he is racist why would he own an NBA team when the majority of the NBA is minority.
That's like asking why plantation owners owned plantations... The whole thing is sick no matter what context there may have been for his comments.

[1991 duke law]

I would liken this to the Chick-fil-A controversy. If Sterling wants to say whatever he believes, he has a God given right to. And I, conversely, have the right to decide that he's a bigoted d-bag. Fans of the franchise have the right to boycott, protest, make a fuss, what-have-you. It isn't a First Amendment issue.

You have the right to state what you want, and people can judge you on behalf of that.

If I can't make judgments on you based on your stated comments/beliefs, what am I supposed to form opinions on?

This is tough... I want Sterling to go down in the ball of flames, but I want the players (JJ of course) to do well in the face of adversity. The league is in a very tough spot. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Ok, i anticipate that my response will not be well received by some. I take issue with the positions being put forward that Sterling should not be entitled to own a franchise due to his comments. It goes without saying that i am not defending Sterling and like every person on the board i condemn rascist commentary. However, i have a real issue with private conversations being taped and disseminated to the world to hear. TMZ is obviously a gross rag of an organization and I have not yet figured out what they possibly add to the world of knowledge or entertainment to justify their existence.

I ackowledge that this private conversation may reveal (at least partially because there may be context missing) what is in Donald Sterling's heart but most people have some aspect of their points of view on various issues that would be viewed as inappropriate by the much of society. That may be religious, political, race, etc. If the owner of a restaurant treats me properly at all times when i dine at his restaurant but goes home and complains to his wife about "me and my people and how gross we are", I am not harmed so long as he treats me properly when i am frequenting his restaurant. I should not know what he says in private and respect his right to engage in private discussions with his friends and family.

I do not want society to govern the conduct and discussions of people in private provided that those private acts do not cause provable harm in public. In other words, if Donald Sterling is discriminating against people in business or in public or making inappropriate comments in public (ie. at work or in the press) - that is worthy of condemnation and censure and should be addressed. But if he is having a private discussion with his girlfriend and it is being taped by someone looking to exercise a vendetta against him or otherwise, i have less interest in getting involved in the condemnation of the man. I may not wish to deal with him, i may elect to not purchase what he sells and i may lose respect for him, but i am not going to advocate taking away his property rights.

Again, Donald Sterling will suffer the burden of his comments - there is no getting around that. But i find the taping and dissemination to the world of a private discussion the bigger issue here. And while i understand that the NBA will have to protect their asset so they will find a way to punish Sterling and address public opinion, i would suggest that the appropriate response is for "fans" to stop attending Clippers games and asking for a refund on the tickets purchased. In this case, the public opinion of Donald Sterling and the disgrace that he has been exposed to has been a pretty good punishment. Regardless as to your wealth, this type of humiliation and public condemnation is likely a very difficult pill for him to swallow.

[Duke3517]

Can you provide a conceivable context that might make Sterling's comments acceptable? Further, which opinions expressed here or elsewhere about Sterling would you describe as "insane"?

I was asking a question. I wasn't suggesting that he was misquoted or taken out of context. What I was saying is that ESPN and other media markets are rushing to judgment about this situation. I provided an example such as Jeremy Schapp's piece on ESPN. I'm not at all saying that I agree with him nor am I racist in anyway. All I am "asking" is based on the information we in the public have, should we automatically promote him as the worst human being on the planet?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Ok, i anticipate that my response will not be well received by some. I take issue with the positions being put forward that Sterling should not be entitled to own a franchise due to his comments. It goes without saying that i am not defending Sterling and like every person on the board i condemn rascist commentary. However, i have a real issue with private conversations being taped and disseminated to the world to hear. TMZ is obviously a gross rag of an organization and I have not yet figured out what they possibly add to the world of knowledge or entertainment to justify their existence.

Well, any other "punishment" is rather laughable. What monetary fine do you give a man with a billion dollars? "Suspension?" Suspension from what? Something that affects his ownership of the team is the only meaningful act.


I ackowledge that this private conversation may reveal (at least partially because there may be context missing) what is in Donald Sterling's heart but most people have some aspect of their points of view on various issues that would be viewed as inappropriate by the much of society. That may be religious, political, race, etc. If the owner of a restaurant treats me properly at all times when i dine at his restaurant but goes home and complains to his wife about "me and my people and how gross we are", I am not harmed so long as he treats me properly when i am frequenting his restaurant. I should not know what he says in private and respect his right to engage in private discussions with his friends and family.

Agreed, but if the owner of a restaurant where you work does the same, isn't that a different scenario? I don't give one rip about Sterling - he's clearly human trash and has been submitting evidence to that for quite some time now. I feel horrible for anyone in the organization's employ. They are trying to win games and make a playoff run. Meanwhile "in real life" everyone is asking them how they can justify working hard to make money for a proven racist bigot. That's not a fun situation. I would suggest that if the league is not in a legal position to somehow snag Donald's ownership, they let all players and coaches out of existing contracts. Let them decide for themselves whether or not they have any interest in continuing working with a man who uses such abhorrent language.


I do not want society to govern the conduct and discussions of people in private provided that those private acts do not cause provable harm in public. In other words, if Donald Sterling is discriminating against people in business or in public or making inappropriate comments in public (ie. at work or in the press) - that is worthy of condemnation and censure and should be addressed. But if he is having a private discussion with his girlfriend and it is being taped by someone looking to exercise a vendetta against him or otherwise, i have less interest in getting involved in the condemnation of the man. I may not wish to deal with him, i may elect to not purchase what he sells and i may lose respect for him, but i am not going to advocate taking away his property rights.

Again, Donald Sterling will suffer the burden of his comments - there is no getting around that. But i find the taping and dissemination to the world of a private discussion the bigger issue here. And while i understand that the NBA will have to protect their asset so they will find a way to punish Sterling and address public opinion, i would suggest that the appropriate response is for "fans" to stop attending Clippers games and asking for a refund on the tickets purchased. In this case, the public opinion of Donald Sterling and the disgrace that he has been exposed to has been a pretty good punishment. Regardless as to your wealth, this type of humiliation and public condemnation is likely a very difficult pill for him to swallow.

I understand where you are coming from, but to me that sounds like the difference between apologizing for cheating, and feeling sorry that you got caught. I understand that in the court of law improperly obtained evidence is inadmissable in court (noting your user name here, 1991 duke law) and my only legal experience was as a paralegal years ago, but you can't un-say things just because you had no knowledge that you were being taped.

Let's play this out here for just a moment... I don't know what the likelihood of the NBA voiding any existing contracts, but I like the idea. If they let the players know now that at the end of the season, those who elect to would be eligible for free agency, I would root my rear-end off for them to make a good playoff run, end their season, and then go their serparate ways. Then, moving forward, who in their right mind would sign up with the Clippers? God, the poor souls who were drafted by them in the coming draft would be pariahs. Sterling would see the writing on the wall, and be forced to terminate his interest in the team (sell to a new owner, be taken by the owners' consortium, become an NBA co-op, what have you) and then your personal property issue is handled ipso facto.

Regardless, I suppose I disagree with your most emphatic point - that the recording of the conversation is the bigger issue here. People have been surrepitiously recording conversations for as long as there were tapes in the White House. It's unfortunate, I guess, that this woman might have been out to get Sterling and provoking him knowing that she planned to release the tape - but in no way does it exonerate DS for being so earnestly racist. Additionally, it doesn't mean that the American public, NBA players, Clippers fan, and whoever else can't decide that they want nothing to do with him.

The NBA is best served to act as swiftly and dramatically as possible. If they are seen as in any way tolerant of his views it will be a mark on the league for years moving forward.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I was asking a question. I wasn't suggesting that he was misquoted or taken out of context. What I was saying is that ESPN and other media markets are rushing to judgment about this situation. I provided an example such as Jeremy Schapp's piece on ESPN. I'm not at all saying that I agree with him nor am I racist in anyway. All I am "asking" is based on the information we in the public have, should we automatically promote him as the worst human being on the planet?

Well, everyone in the media is using the disclaimer "pending verification of the audio" - but if there were any doubt that it was Sterling, wouldn't you think that he would have spoken up long ago? If anyone had purported audio of me using invective language, I would be the very first to say "hey now, that's not me."

The only conceivable extenuating circumstance that I can imagine was something I read in jest on a message board somewhere else - what if they were reading a screenplay aloud? I mean, it is LA.

Honestly, to me, listening to the audio it sounds like a slightly drunken argument with a lover. Not that I have any first hand knowledge of this per say, but the language does sound a little looser than one would use in a normal conversation. Far from being exculpatory circumstance though.

[sagegrouse]

Again, Donald Sterling will suffer the burden of his comments - there is no getting around that. But i find the taping and dissemination to the world of a private discussion the bigger issue here. And while i understand that the NBA will have to protect their asset so they will find a way to punish Sterling and address public opinion, i would suggest that the appropriate response is for "fans" to stop attending Clippers games and asking for a refund on the tickets purchased. In this case, the public opinion of Donald Sterling and the disgrace that he has been exposed to has been a pretty good punishment. Regardless as to your wealth, this type of humiliation and public condemnation is likely a very difficult pill for him to swallow.

Sterling has a certain right to privacy, but this cat is out of the bag and it isn't going back in. The repercussions will be huge, even if his "opinions" are protected speech and his rights to privacy have been violated. His remarks are incompatible with being the public face of a professional sports franchise, especially a basketball one. His set of remarks is a public relations issue, a labor issue, a marketing and sales issue, and a racial relations issue all thrown together in one truly stinking ball.

We'll see where this goes. Interesting though that the NBA owners are flat flunking the test -- the only two who have spoken out in a way critical of Sterling are Michael Jordan and Vivek Ranadive. Gee, what do they have in common? Utterly disgraceful lack of response.

[Troublemaker]

It's nice to know that millions of dollars really don't change the inner workings of a bad relationship.

Putting aside the racial element, Sterling and Stiviano seem like 8-yr-olds arguing on that recording. I know many people's lovers' spats would sound somewhat immature since couples sometimes get into stupid arguments, but man, I would hope that if my significant other ever records one of our arguments, we would sound slightly less stupid than these two idiots. Sterling is an awful person, and Stiviano is a piece of work herself, sleeping with a married man, recording and releasing a private conversation. "V." is for Vendetta, apparently.

[1991 duke law]

Well, any other "punishment" is rather laughable. What monetary fine do you give a man with a billion dollars? "Suspension?" Suspension from what? Something that affects his ownership of the team is the only meaningful act.



Agreed, but if the owner of a restaurant where you work does the same, isn't that a different scenario? I don't give one rip about Sterling - he's clearly human trash and has been submitting evidence to that for quite some time now. I feel horrible for anyone in the organization's employ. They are trying to win games and make a playoff run. Meanwhile "in real life" everyone is asking them how they can justify working hard to make money for a proven racist bigot. That's not a fun situation. I would suggest that if the league is not in a legal position to somehow snag Donald's ownership, they let all players and coaches out of existing contracts. Let them decide for themselves whether or not they have any interest in continuing working with a man who uses such abhorrent language.



I understand where you are coming from, but to me that sounds like the difference between apologizing for cheating, and feeling sorry that you got caught. I understand that in the court of law improperly obtained evidence is inadmissable in court (noting your user name here, 1991 duke law) and my only legal experience was as a paralegal years ago, but you can't un-say things just because you had no knowledge that you were being taped.

Let's play this out here for just a moment... I don't know what the likelihood of the NBA voiding any existing contracts, but I like the idea. If they let the players know now that at the end of the season, those who elect to would be eligible for free agency, I would root my rear-end off for them to make a good playoff run, end their season, and then go their serparate ways. Then, moving forward, who in their right mind would sign up with the Clippers? God, the poor souls who were drafted by them in the coming draft would be pariahs. Sterling would see the writing on the wall, and be forced to terminate his interest in the team (sell to a new owner, be taken by the owners' consortium, become an NBA co-op, what have you) and then your personal property issue is handled ipso facto.

Regardless, I suppose I disagree with your most emphatic point - that the recording of the conversation is the bigger issue here. People have been surrepitiously recording conversations for as long as there were tapes in the White House. It's unfortunate, I guess, that this woman might have been out to get Sterling and provoking him knowing that she planned to release the tape - but in no way does it exonerate DS for being so earnestly racist. Additionally, it doesn't mean that the American public, NBA players, Clippers fan, and whoever else can't decide that they want nothing to do with him.

The NBA is best served to act as swiftly and dramatically as possible. If they are seen as in any way tolerant of his views it will be a mark on the league for years moving forward.

I anticipate that you are correct with how the NBA will respond. From a public relations perspective, they will move quickly.

I have no knowledge of Donald Sterling beyond the recent controversy. So my view is not affected by anything but the disclosure of the tape. I do not know what the constitution of the league provides for in the case of sanctions against an owner. I of course doubt that they can force one to sale a franchise based on these events. As for the players, i do not dispute that they are disgusted by what they have heard. And i support the suggestion that players contemplate not playing for the Clippers. It is obviously more difficult for those under contract and those that are drafted by the Clippers. We'll see how many free agents elect to pass on greater compensation from LA and go elsewhere - money and principals do not always go hand in hand.

I am not making a comparison to apologizing for getting caught. I do not know if he has even apologized for what was disclosed in the tape. There is no doubt that his comments reflect very badly on him and apologizing will not take away the perception that he has racist views. My only point is my disgust with the taping of someone in private and broadcasting it publicly. This is not a legal argument but a philosophical one. Whether the law permits or does not permit the taping of a private conversation and the subsequent disclosure of the tape to TMZ to put on tv does not have a bearing on my philosophical view of the impropriety of such conduct.

The fact that some rich guy has racist views that were privately aired is not exactly exciting or unique. The sad reality is that racism exists and throughout the United States private dicsussions that are racist are commonly occuring. Actually having your discussion with your girlfriend taped and broadcasted to the whole world is fairly unique. Whereas i like to think that i am above the comments made by Sterling and do not hold racist views, i sure as heck do not want my wife or friends taping my discussions with them and having them aired to the whole world. And frankly, i think that i should have a reasonable expectation that my discussions with them (assuming that they are not criminal) will not be taped and disseminated for the world to hear.

[Atlanta Duke]

TMZ is obviously a gross rag of an organization and I have not yet figured out what they possibly add to the world of knowledge or entertainment to justify their existence.

TMZ pays for stories and shovels out a lot of gossip, but a racist tirade by the owner of a franchise in a sport where the overwhelming majority of the players are black appears to me to be newsworthy.

And as far as justifying its existence, TMZ has been acknowledged to have some credibility as a news source, as discussed in this article on TMZ's coverage of an alleged assault by Baltimore Ravens player Ray Rice.

Howard Kurtz, host of “Media Buzz” on Fox News, has been treating TMZ like a serious player for years in his previous jobs as Washington Post media correspondent, Daily Beast Washington bureau chief and host of “Reliable Sources” on CNN.

“TMZ may have a tabloid sensibility, but it consistently beats the mainstream media on important stories,” he wrote in an email. “The Ray Rice video is just the latest example of TMZ's knack of obtaining damaging footage or documents about celebrities from different walks of life. And while the website sometimes pays for these scoops, they are exclusives that force the rest of the press to play catch-up.”

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-02-22/entertainment/bal-ray-rice-and-how-tmz-counters-the-great-american-hype-machine-20140222_1_ray-rice-tmz-site-tmz-sports/2


But if he is having a private discussion with his girlfriend and it is being taped by someone looking to exercise a vendetta against him or otherwise, i have less interest in getting involved in the condemnation of the man. I may not wish to deal with him, i may elect to not purchase what he sells and i may lose respect for him, but i am not going to advocate taking away his property rights....

But i find the taping and dissemination to the world of a private discussion the bigger issue here.

The recording of the conversation by the girlfriend (or whomever was assisting her) violates California law - if Sterling is that incensed he can file a civil action or try to get the DA interested in prosecuting the girlfriend (good luck with that). But with regard to Sterling's property rights, my guess is what prompted the leaking of the conversation was the Sterlings failing to back off a lawsuit where the girlfriend thought someone was improperly seeking to take away her property rights. She elected to punch back.

Donald Sterling’s wife of more than 50 years describes his alleged mistress as a gold digger who seduces older, wealthy men and persuades them to shower her with gifts, according to a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 7....

The property was supposed to be held in the Sterlings’ name, Rochelle Sterling contends, but Stiviano has title and has refused to relinquish it. Arguing that the gifts were all allegedly made without Rochelle Sterling’s knowledge or consent, the complaint seeks their return along with compensatory damages.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...#ixzz306JTMLXh


In this case, the public opinion of Donald Sterling and the disgrace that he has been exposed to has been a pretty good punishment. Regardless as to your wealth, this type of humiliation and public condemnation is likely a very difficult pill for him to swallow.

But the damage is not limited to Sterling's reputation, which already was abysmal. If the Clippers franchise devolves from its history of mediocrity to becoming absolutely toxic, with fans, top coaches and top players exercising their right not to associate with the Clippers if no action is taken by the league, that impacts the value of a NBA franchise in the nation's number two media market. I agree the league presumably cannot force Sterling to sell, although he may elect to do so if he thinks he can get a higher price now than he will if he continues to be associated with the team. But by suspending him from team operations and imposing a significant fine, that will directly benefit the value of the Clippers franchise and the league by attempting to address the conduct and avoid a boycott of the franchise.

[Duvall]

I anticipate that you are correct with how the NBA will respond. From a public relations perspective, they will move quickly.

I have no knowledge of Donald Sterling beyond the recent controversy. So my view is not affected by anything but the disclosure of the tape. I do not know what the constitution of the league provides for in the case of sanctions against an owner. I of course doubt that they can force one to sale a franchise based on these events. As for the players, i do not dispute that they are disgusted by what they have heard. And i support the suggestion that players contemplate not playing for the Clippers. It is obviously more difficult for those under contract and those that are drafted by the Clippers. We'll see how many free agents elect to pass on greater compensation from LA and go elsewhere - money and principals do not always go hand in hand.

Well, I'm certainly glad that you aren't suggesting that the players are lying when they say they are disgusted by Sterling's comments. That's quite a concession on your part.

In any case, you may want to read up before going any further. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729)


I am not making a comparison to apologizing for getting caught. I do not know if he has even apologized for what was disclosed in the tape. There is no doubt that his comments reflect very badly on him and apologizing will not take away the perception that he has racist views. My only point is my disgust with the taping of someone in private and broadcasting it publicly. This is not a legal argument but a philosophical one. Whether the law permits or does not permit the taping of a private conversation and the subsequent disclosure of the tape to TMZ to put on tv does not have a bearing on my philosophical view of the impropriety of such conduct.

The fact that some rich guy has racist views that were privately aired is not exactly exciting or unique. The sad reality is that racism exists and throughout the United States private dicsussions that are racist are commonly occuring. Actually having your discussion with your girlfriend taped and broadcasted to the whole world is fairly unique. Whereas i like to think that i am above the comments made by Sterling and do not hold racist views, i sure as heck do not want my wife or friends taping my discussions with them and having them aired to the whole world. And frankly, i think that i should have a reasonable expectation that my discussions with them (assuming that they are not criminal) will not be taped and disseminated for the world to hear.

You may want to reflect on what it means that the aspect of this story that bothers you most is the one aspect that you can imagine affecting you personally, even hypothetically.

[JasonEvans]

I was asking a question. I wasn't suggesting that he was misquoted or taken out of context. What I was saying is that ESPN and other media markets are rushing to judgment about this situation. I provided an example such as Jeremy Schapp's piece on ESPN. I'm not at all saying that I agree with him nor am I racist in anyway. All I am "asking" is based on the information we in the public have, should we automatically promote him as the worst human being on the planet?

I don't think anyone is saying he is the worst human being on the planet. He's certainly no Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, or Kim Jong Ung.

All many of us are saying is that he is not someone who should be allowed to own and profit from a public entertainment venture like an NBA franchise. Donald Sterling does not pass my standard for people who get to profit from organizations that represent entire cities and spend all their time in the public eye. I say all that awaiting the result of an investigation into the tape to ensure its veracity; though it is worth noting that Sterling's history would indicate the views on the tape are not out of line with what we have come to expect from this man.

By the way, speaking of the investigation, can anyone explain to me why it is taking so long? Shouldn't it go like this...


(Sound of phone ringing)
Operator: Hello, LA Clippers Office
Silver: Hi, this is NBA commish Adam Silver. I need to speak to Donald right away.
Operator: One moment please...
Sterling: Hey Adam. What's up?
Silver: I am sure you have heard the tape that TMZ and others are playing, right?
Sterling: I sure have.
Silver: Cool, I have a simple question then -- Is that your voice on the tape; did you say the things on that tape or was it doctored?

Sterling: (answer #1) Yes
Silver: Thanks. I will be conducting a conference call with the other owners and get back to you within the next couple hours with a response. We will expect you to admit publicly that the tape has not been doctored. Thanks for your honesty, Don.

Sterling: (answer #2) No
Silver: Ok, we will conduct a full investigation but I want you to know that lying to me about this would constitute a breach of trust with the league and that your lie would most certainly fall under the 'best interests of the game' clause that allows me to take unilateral action to protect the NBA. If you are found to be lying by our forensic investigators it would bring far more serious penalties... FAR MORE SERIOUS! Off the top of my head, I would say that lying would mean that your league imposed fine would go up by something like 20 or 25 million dollars. Now, do you want to revise your answer to my question at this point?

-Jason "See, if I was Adam Silver the investigation would be over verrrrry quickly" Evans

[JasonEvans]

One idea I keep on hearing kicked around today is the notion of allowing all Clipper players and staff (coaching as well as front office) to become free agents. Any other NBA team that wants to match or exceed their current Clipper contracts could have them and the Clippers would have no recourse. The rationale would be that the Clippers constitute a hazardous working environment. A former-Clipper contract would only count 2/3rds toward the salary cap for the next 2 years, allowing teams even more ability to bring those players on board.

I've already heard this morning that corporate sponsors are racing away from the Clippers at a pace that would make Tiger Woods' head spin. The threat of players bolting from the team combined with sponsorships drying up should convince Sterling to sell.

-Jason "hit him in his wallet, that's all this jerk cares about anyway" Evans

[Matches]

I don't think anyone is saying he is the worst human being on the planet. He's certainly no Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, or Kim Jong Ung.

All many of us are saying is that he is not someone who should be allowed to own and profit from a public entertainment venture like an NBA franchise. Donald Sterling does not pass my standard for people who get to profit from organizations that represent entire cities and spend all their time in the public eye.

I guess the question is "allowed by who"? Sterling hasn't passed my smell test for a really long time, either, this just being the latest example - ergo I don't root for the Clippers or buy their merchandise. But that's more or less where it ends for me.

If the answer is "allowed by the NBA" - I'd say that legally it's questionable whether they can make him sell the team. The league wanted George Shinn to sell for forever too and couldn't force it - no one knows exactly what the extent of the league's power is so I'm not saying it *can't* - just that it may not be cut and dried.

If the answer is "allowed by society" - that's where I start to get uncomfortable, because "society" increasingly seems to act like an angry lynch mob 99% of the time, especially when its ire is raised by legitimately bad behavior. Sterling's had a LONG history of being an inveterate racist, in addition to just being a lousy owner, but now we're all incensed by a leaked recording of a private conversation? I guess there's something to the old notion of the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back, but we've literally learned nothing about Sterling in the last few days that we didn't all already know. The only difference is that now he's in the news so folks' outrage meters gets tweaked.

[Des Esseintes]

I guess the question is "allowed by who"? Sterling hasn't passed my smell test for a really long time, either, this just being the latest example - ergo I don't root for the Clippers or buy their merchandise. But that's more or less where it ends for me.

If the answer is "allowed by the NBA" - I'd say that legally it's questionable whether they can make him sell the team. The league wanted George Shinn to sell for forever too and couldn't force it - no one knows exactly what the extent of the league's power is so I'm not saying it *can't* - just that it may not be cut and dried.

If the answer is "allowed by society" - that's where I start to get uncomfortable, because "society" increasingly seems to act like an angry lynch mob 99% of the time, especially when its ire is raised by legitimately bad behavior. Sterling's had a LONG history of being an inveterate racist, in addition to just being a lousy owner, but now we're all incensed by a leaked recording of a private conversation? I guess there's something to the old notion of the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back, but we've literally learned nothing about Sterling in the last few days that we didn't all already know. The only difference is that now he's in the news so folks' outrage meters gets tweaked.

Why does "lynch mob" keep coming up in this thread with Donald Sterling as the martyred victim?

[1991 duke law]

Well, I'm certainly glad that you aren't suggesting that the players are lying when they say they are disgusted by Sterling's comments. That's quite a concession on your part.

In any case, you may want to read up before going any further. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729)



You may want to reflect on what it means that the aspect of this story that bothers you most is the one aspect that you can imagine affecting you personally, even hypothetically.

Concession? I really do not understand what you are referring to - where was there in anything that i stated that would make you think that there was a possibility that i thought that players were lying about their being disgusted by Sterling's comments?

I actually do not need to reflect more on the point. A rich old guy from California (who it appears has a history of being a jerk by many accounts) told his young girlfriend not to associate with black men and it was taped and sent out to the media to humiliate him. So the world now knows that this rich old guy has racist views. Unfortunately I am not shocked by his conduct (i was well aware that racism has not gone away in America - or the world for that matter) but don't misconstrue a lack of shock to be an acceptance of the conduct. I anticipate that he will become a greater outcast than perhaps he was previously - people do not want to associate with those that are outed as being racist. I am shocked, however, that private conversations with one's girlfriend are taped and then played out in the national media.

Someone noted that it is illegal in California to tape private conversations. Most laws are based on moral objectives - so presumably it was viewed as being morally objectionable to tape people's conversations without their knowledge. While not making a comparison of wrongs, i do not support and do oppose the taping of his private conversations and the distributing it to the media to be played out to the world. And for that, i need no additional reflection.

[Matches]

Why does "lynch mob" keep coming up in this thread with Donald Sterling as the martyred victim?

Sterling is not a martyr; on that I suspect most if not all of us agree. Ultimately he has brought all of this on himself.

[sagegrouse]

If the answer is "allowed by society" - that's where I start to get uncomfortable, because "society" increasingly seems to act like an angry lynch mob 99% of the time, especially when its ire is raised by legitimately bad behavior. Sterling's had a LONG history of being an inveterate racist, in addition to just being a lousy owner, but now we're all incensed by a leaked recording of a private conversation? I guess there's something to the old notion of the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back, but we've literally learned nothing about Sterling in the last few days that we didn't all already know. The only difference is that now he's in the news so folks' outrage meters gets tweaked.


Why does "lynch mob" keep coming up in this thread with Donald Sterling as the martyred victim?

I agree with you, Des Esseintes. Matches jumps from if the NBA can't (or won't) act to the recourse being "society" and an "angry lynch mob." And, of course, "society" is apparently worse than even Donald Sterling in his view. Uh.... Matches, there is a long history in America of peaceful actions to promote social change. I am not sure we need even demonstrations: Mr. Sterling will have no advertisers and few players; tickets sales will fall to zero; the City of LA and the State of CA will take every legal effort to kick him out of the Staples Center and not give him another place to play. Where's the "angry lynch mob" and why would you be upset with strong actions of the government and the citizenry to rid the NBA of such vermin?

[SoCalDukeFan]

I would liken this to the Chick-fil-A controversy.

No one has to work at Chick-fil-A. Maybe for some its the only acceptable job they can find. Most of the Clippers can find other jobs in basketball.

Likewise no one has to eat at Chick-fil-A. No one has to go to Clippers games either. My problem is that I do like and actually feel a little sorry for some of their players so I want the players to get over this and do their best.

Too bad Stern kept Chris Paul from the Lakers.

SoCal

[bob blue devil]

My only point is my disgust with the taping of someone in private and broadcasting it publicly. This is not a legal argument but a philosophical one. Whether the law permits or does not permit the taping of a private conversation and the subsequent disclosure of the tape to TMZ to put on tv does not have a bearing on my philosophical view of the impropriety of such conduct.

I don't have a well formed view regarding your comment (my knee jerk response is to agree), but I don't share your concern in this circumstance. Sterling has chosen to put himself in the very high-profile role of nba owner. Having his newsworthy private views potentially made public is something he signed up for. If he didn't want this level of scrutiny, he could have stuck to just being a sleazy real estate guy.

[InSpades]

I don't have a well formed view regarding your comment (my knee jerk response is to agree), but I don't share your concern in this circumstance. Sterling has chosen to put himself in the very high-profile role of nba owner. Having his newsworthy private views potentially made public is something he signed up for. If he didn't want this level of scrutiny, he could have stuck to just being a sleazy real estate guy.

I'm guessing if we aired the dirty laundry of every NBA owner that this might not hit the top 10.

I don't condone or agree with what he said, but I do think people are taking things too far. Chris Brown has #1 singles and sells out arenas... he put his girlfriend in the hospital by beating her w/ his fist. If people can look the other way about that...

The NBA obviously has to suspend him, I don't know if punishing him more than that is necessary. The talk of disbanding the team and letting all the players go via free agency is ridiculous. Not going to happen.

[Matches]

I agree with you, Des Esseintes. Matches jumps from if the NBA can't (or won't) act to the recourse being "society" and an "angry lynch mob." And, of course, "society" is apparently worse than even Donald Sterling in his view.

No. I did not say that.

Respectfully, I will step away from this thread. Cheers.

[Atlanta Duke]

This would be an interesting resolution

Magic Johnson and his billionaire backers, the Guggenheim Partners, want a chance to purchase the Los Angeles Clippers, league sources told Yahoo Sports. "Magic's absolutely interested," one source closely connected to Johnson's business interests told Yahoo Sports on Sunday night.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/exit-strategy-for-nba--donald-sterling--sell-clippers-to-magic-johnson-073015142.html

But in addition to his other problems Sterling has marital woes

"I don't condone those statements and I don't believe in them," Rochelle Sterling told ESPN. ... "Our family is devastated by the racist comments made by my estranged husband. My children and I do not share these despicable views or prejudices. We will not let one man's small-mindedness poison the spirit of the fans and accomplishments of the team in the city we love. We are doing everything in our power to stand by and support our Clippers team."

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10851689/sponsors-ponder-deals-los-angeles-clippers-donald-sterling-purported-racist-comments

Any sale presumably requires the estranged wife to sign off, assuming the Clippers franchise is community property

[Des Esseintes]

By the way, speaking of the investigation, can anyone explain to me why it is taking so long? Shouldn't it go like this...


(Sound of phone ringing)
Operator: Hello, LA Clippers Office
Silver: Hi, this is NBA commish Adam Silver. I need to speak to Donald right away.
Operator: One moment please...
Sterling: Hey Adam. What's up?
Silver: I am sure you have heard the tape that TMZ and others are playing, right?
Sterling: I sure have.
Silver: Cool, I have a simple question then -- Is that your voice on the tape; did you say the things on that tape or was it doctored?

Sterling: (answer #1) Yes
Silver: Thanks. I will be conducting a conference call with the other owners and get back to you within the next couple hours with a response. We will expect you to admit publicly that the tape has not been doctored. Thanks for your honesty, Don.

Sterling: (answer #2) No
Silver: Ok, we will conduct a full investigation but I want you to know that lying to me about this would constitute a breach of trust with the league and that your lie would most certainly fall under the 'best interests of the game' clause that allows me to take unilateral action to protect the NBA. If you are found to be lying by our forensic investigators it would bring far more serious penalties... FAR MORE SERIOUS! Off the top of my head, I would say that lying would mean that your league imposed fine would go up by something like 20 or 25 million dollars. Now, do you want to revise your answer to my question at this point?

-Jason "See, if I was Adam Silver the investigation would be over verrrrry quickly" Evans
Sterling is tres litigious. I would guess the feeling is that ducks ought to be in a very neat row before action gets taken. Further delaying matters, Silver, an untested (albeit Duke) suit with less than Olympian job security, will likely only act with the benison of the rest of NBA ownership, and consensus there will likely be difficult to reach. These guys have let all kind of malfeasance on Sterling's part slide for decades. They are obviously hoping by dragging things out that the furor dies down a bit. Neither Silver nor any of the other owners wants to take a drastic step, and will only do so if public pressure is perceived as overwhelming.

[1991 duke law]

I don't have a well formed view regarding your comment (my knee jerk response is to agree), but I don't share your concern in this circumstance. Sterling has chosen to put himself in the very high-profile role of nba owner. Having his newsworthy private views potentially made public is something he signed up for. If he didn't want this level of scrutiny, he could have stuck to just being a sleazy real estate guy.

I am not sure that it is fair to hold a rich guy who owns a franchise to a different standard than you are I when it comes to a right to privacy when having discussions with a girlfriend/spouse in a private place. Being held to a higher level of scrutiny is different than having a lower right to privacy. So his actions in public and how he runs his business and how he treats people can be scrutinized in a way that you and i would not be exposed to. I think part of the problem here is that Sterling appears to have a terrible reputation and what he said in the tape is gross - so it is difficult to find any reason to lend any support to his situation. Notwithstanding this, I would suggest that privacy rights are the same for jerks and good people in the same fashion just as free speach is given to jerks and good people equally.

But i do appreciate that these discussions raise interesting and complicated issues and they do require thought and discourse. Which i appreciate is happening here.

[Des Esseintes]

I am not sure that it is fair to hold a rich guy who owns a franchise to a different standard than you are I when it comes to a right to privacy when having discussions with a girlfriend/spouse in a private place. Being held to a higher level of scrutiny is different than having a lower right to privacy. So his actions in public and how he runs his business and how he treats people can be scrutinized in a way that you and i would not be exposed to. I think part of the problem here is that Sterling appears to have a terrible reputation and what he said in the tape is gross - so it is difficult to find any reason to lend any support to his situation. Notwithstanding this, I would suggest that privacy rights are the same for jerks and good people in the same fashion just as free speach is given to jerks and good people equally.

But i do appreciate that these discussions raise interesting and complicated issues and they do require thought and discourse. Which i appreciate is happening here.

To me, the taping-without-consent thing is a bit of red herring. Lots of states have less stringent requirements on taping conversations than does California. IANAL, but I believe in New York state only *one* party needs to be aware of a taped conversation for it to be legal. That's in the case of phone convos, at any rate. Obviously, the conversation in all likelihood did not happen in New York. It probably happened in in California. But my point is that the law on this particular issue varies over a pretty wide spectrum, and in many places around the country Stiviano's action would be well within the bounds of sanctioned law. To say it is an automatically reprehensible act on her part is a debatable point.

[theAlaskanBear]

I would just like to reiterate that while I think the discussion of the precise context and legality of the taping is fair game, to me it is just the cherry on top of sleaze-sundae. This tape, absent any other issues with Sterling would not be a huge deal.

But this is a man who was sued by the government twice for discrimination in housing policies.

He was sued by HOFer and former Clipper GM Elgin Baylor for racial and age discrimination.


In his deposition, Baylor spoke about what he called Sterling's 'plantation mentality,' alleging the owner in the late 1990s rejected a coaching candidate, Jim Brewer, because of race. Baylor quoted Sterling as saying: 'Personally, I would like to have a white Southern coach coaching poor black players.'


When Manning’s agent told Sterling that the offer was unacceptable, Sterling responded by saying it was a lot of money. Said Baylor, in the deposition: “Donald T. said, ‘Well that’s a lot of money for a poor black ... ' -- I think he said kid. For a poor black kid I think. For a poor black something, kid or boy or something. Poor black. Poor black. Danny was upset. So Danny just stormed out. He just stormed out of the place. Where he went, I don’t know. He never came back to the house.”

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2042877-a-brief-history-of-donald-sterlings-alleged-racism


"During this same period, players Sam Cassell, Elton Brand and Corey Maggette complained to me that DONALD STERLING would bring women into the locker room after games, while the players were showering, and make comments such as, 'Look at those beautiful black bodies.' I brought this to Sterling's attention, but he continued to bring women into the locker room."

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/23649/legal-filings-show-frustration-of-clipper-gms

Bottom line is Sterling disgraces the NBA. They should have gone after him during the Elgin Baylor lawsuit. Whatever you think of his latest comments, please note it is just the most recent evidence of racial bias and abuse.

[1991 duke law]

To me, the taping-without-consent thing is a bit of red herring. Lots of states have less stringent requirements on taping conversations than does California. IANAL, but I believe in New York state only *one* party needs to be aware of a taped conversation for it to be legal. That's in the case of phone convos, at any rate. Obviously, the conversation in all likelihood did not happen in New York. It probably happened in in California. But my point is that the law on this particular issue varies over a pretty wide spectrum, and in many places around the country Stiviano's action would be well within the bounds of sanctioned law. To say it is an automatically reprehensible act on her part is a debatable point.

Really? This is easy for me to disagree with. I have no problem concluding that her act is reprehensible. Whether it is legal or not i am not debating. But taping a private discussion between two people that are in a relationship and giving it to TMZ to release to the world is pretty reprehensible act in my view. However, i guess everyone has a different standard as to what is right and wrong and i recognize that we may have a different opinion.

[InSpades]

For the record, Elgin Baylor was the GM of the Clippers for 22 years. 1986-2008 or so. In that time the Clippers had 2 winning seasons. It would seem odd to fire someone after 22 years of lackluster performance because of the color of their skin. I'm not privy to the details of the lawsuit, but was rejected unanimously (12-0) by a jury.

Sterling is clearly a racist, but hiring a minority owner in 1986 and keeping him in the same job for 22 years while the team is under-performing is not exactly evidence against him.

[Atlanta Duke]

Really? This is easy for me to disagree with. I have no problem concluding that her act is reprehensible. Whether it is legal or not i am not debating. But taping a private discussion between two people that are in a relationship and giving it to TMZ to release to the world is pretty reprehensible act in my view. However, i guess everyone has a different standard as to what is right and wrong and i recognize that we may have a different opinion.

Donald Trump agrees with you :)

“He got set up by a very, very bad girlfriend, let’s face it. She’s called ‘the girlfriend from hell.’ "

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/donald-trump-donald-sterling-girlfriend

This is not two lovesick kids having a messy breakup - it is a business transaction gone bad and the Clippers season probably is going to be collateral damage

Adam Silver will share his thoughts tomorrow

The NBA will hold a press conference tomorrow to make an announcement about its investigation involving Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Additional details will be announced.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/28/nba-to-make-announcement-on-donald-sterling-investigation-tomorrow/related/

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Really? This is easy for me to disagree with. I have no problem concluding that her act is reprehensible. Whether it is legal or not i am not debating. But taping a private discussion between two people that are in a relationship and giving it to TMZ to release to the world is pretty reprehensible act in my view. However, i guess everyone has a different standard as to what is right and wrong and i recognize that we may have a different opinion.

Fine, great. Give the greedy girlfriend 30 days. Now, let's get back to agreeing that Sterling shouldn't represent an NBA franchise.

Seriously, do you feel that the taping of the conversation somehow exonerates Sterling? Two wrongs just makes two wrongs.

As far as the upthread mention of Chick Filet employees, I also felt bad for them. In fact, way worse. They aren't making millions of dollars.

Cut the players loose, and see who decides they want to play for Sterling. The ownership piece will quickly work itself out.

[Des Esseintes]

Fine, great. Give the greedy girlfriend 30 days. Now, let's get back to agreeing that Sterling shouldn't represent an NBA franchise.

Seriously, do you feel that the taping of the conversation somehow exonerates Sterling? Two wrongs just makes two wrongs.

As far as the upthread mention of Chick Filet employees, I also felt bad for them. In fact, way worse. They aren't making millions of dollars.

Cut the players loose, and see who decides they want to play for Sterling. The ownership piece will quickly work itself out.

See, this part feels a little off to me. If the guy continues to own a franchise, he WILL have players. He gets to draft them, he can sign guys on minimum contracts who couldn't get employed elsewhere, he can overpay for free agents. Whoever works for him then has the appearance of having made a dubious moral decision to keep their career alive. It puts the burden on the employees to take a stand when, really, the stand should be taken by the institution of power to whom Sterling belongs. The onus should be on the other owners and league management to at minimum suspend Sterling indefinitely from this team. Otherwise, you're pushing the decision onto the two groups: 1) employees of the Clippers, who include beyond basketball players everyone who at the arena in concessions, etc., and 2) the general public, who must make the choice to give up on a team they had loved or continue in a moral quagmire. These are the two groups with the least power in the equation. Ownership should stand up. It is ownership's responsibility.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

See, this part feels a little off to me. If the guy continues to own a franchise, he WILL have players. He gets to draft them, he can sign guys on minimum contracts who couldn't get employed elsewhere, he can overpay for free agents. Whoever works for him then has the appearance of having made a dubious moral decision to keep their career alive. It puts the burden on the employees to take a stand when, really, the stand should be taken by the institution of power to whom Sterling belongs. The onus should be on the other owners and league management to at minimum suspend Sterling indefinitely from this team. Otherwise, you're pushing the decision onto the two groups: 1) employees of the Clippers, who include beyond basketball players everyone who at the arena in concessions, etc., and 2) the general public, who must make the choice to give up on a team they had loved or continue in a moral quagmire. These are the two groups with the least power in the equation. Ownership should stand up. It is ownership's responsibility.

It's possible that you are right, but I'd give enough credit to the players to imagine that they would want nothing to do with the franchise until ownership was changed. Sterling's own words so vividly describe a neo-plantation workplace that I can't imagine he would be able to lure any players of any race.

[1991 duke law]

Fine, great. Give the greedy girlfriend 30 days. Now, let's get back to agreeing that Sterling shouldn't represent an NBA franchise.

Seriously, do you feel that the taping of the conversation somehow exonerates Sterling? Two wrongs just makes two wrongs.

As far as the upthread mention of Chick Filet employees, I also felt bad for them. In fact, way worse. They aren't making millions of dollars.

Cut the players loose, and see who decides they want to play for Sterling. The ownership piece will quickly work itself out.

Absolutely no exoneration for his comments due to her conduct. We have two wrongs here with two people who have serious problems. It seems Mr. Sterling got into bed with a gold digger and found himself a whole pile of trouble. Maybe they deserve each other.

[Des Esseintes]

It's possible that you are right, but I'd give enough credit to the players to imagine that they would want nothing to do with the franchise until ownership was changed. Sterling's own words so vividly describe a neo-plantation workplace that I can't imagine he would be able to lure any players of any race.

But that's impossible, you know? The Clippers, one way or another, will have 13 players next year. It's not as though all 82 games will be forfeit because the Clippers have no players. Somebody will sign, and we'll just be tainting someone else with Stern's d-bagness.

I would also say, again, that we shouldn't put the responsibility on the *employees* to police a bad work environment. If ownership is the problem, a higher authority can and must be called in.

[Atlanta Duke]

If ownership is the problem, a higher authority can and must be called in.

But assuming you are not seeking divine intervention, Adam Silver works for the owners. Sterling can be suspended but I doubt the owners want to sign off on any disciplinary action that forces an owner to sell a team, forfeits draft choices, or voids contracts as a consequence of personal misconduct (as opposed to actions directly related to league operations such as playing games with the salary cap) by an owner.

[1991 duke law]

But assuming you are not seeking divine intervention, Adam Silver works for the owners. Sterling can be suspended but I doubt the owners want to sign off on any disciplinary action that forces an owner to sell a team, forfeits draft choices, or voids contracts as a consequence of personal misconduct (as opposed to actions directly related to league operations such as playing games with the salary cap) by an owner.

I do not envy Adam Silver - i have no doubt that his divine intervention is the advise of David Stern. Public opinion wants Sterling's head on a pike but you are correct on the issues that you note. This is a no win situation for Silver, the NBA and Sterling.

[weezie]

It seems Mr. Sterling got into bed with a gold digger and found himself a whole pile of trouble. Maybe they deserve each other.

As I understand it, he's still married to his wife? Shades of the Dodger's divorce scenario?

Etan Thomas was on the Tony Kornheiser DC local show this morning and while Thomas was looking for swift 'justice' against Sterling, just how quickly can a substantive response from the league be put in motion? I'm no business wiz so how can (can they?) the other owners assume control of the Clips? Under what I'm guessing is some sort of morals clause in their joint agreement? Is that enforceable in a court of law especially since what Sterling said is not actually illegal?

[Atlanta Duke]

As I understand it, he's still married to his wife?

They are "estranged." She filed a lawsuit to secure the return of Sterling's gifts to his paramour. Mrs. Sterling showing up at courtside yesterday presumably was intended to send the message it is her team too.

[JasonEvans]

Atlanta Hawks co-owner Bruce Levenson was asked (http://jeffschultz.blog.ajc.com/2014/04/28/hawks-levenson-would-support-sterlings-exit/)if NBA owners were to vote to oust Sterling from the club and force him to sell the team. Levenson's response -- "Yes."


He was less certain if the commissioner’s office has that power. He acknowledged that owners have to sign a document “that’s literally hundreds of pages long” and there are “representations we have to make to be good stewards as owners of our teams.”

The document, Levenson said, gives the commissioner’s office “broad powers … when owners have crossed lines. This is a pretty big line that appears to have been crossed. Can I tell you exactly how far Adam can I go? I can’t. I’m sure the lawyers are advising him on that.”

This isn't some blind speculation. As an owner, Levenson has got to be one of the guys "in the loop" on at least some of what is being considered by the NBA. This tells me that the league is looking into some really serious sanctions and perhaps even examining how they might engineer the sale of the team.

-Jason "one thought -- if Sterling's wife wants to retain half-ownership of the team, do that make a buy-out easier because it is less costly?" Evans

[Duvall]

As I understand it, he's still married to his wife? Shades of the Dodger's divorce scenario?

Etan Thomas was on the Tony Kornheiser DC local show this morning and while Thomas was looking for swift 'justice' against Sterling, just how quickly can a substantive response from the league be put in motion? I'm no business wiz so how can (can they?) the other owners assume control of the Clips? Under what I'm guessing is some sort of morals clause in their joint agreement? Is that enforceable in a court of law especially since what Sterling said is not actually illegal?

I'm guessing that tomorrow's announcement by the NBA will bring an indefinite suspension for Sterling pending the ongoing investigation (basically barring him from attending any more playoff games), with a longer suspension to be announced sometime this summer. Beyond that it will probably be up to the other owners to quietly pressure Sterling to sell the team, or at least transfer ownership to his son-in-law.

[CALVET]

i think your concern is misguided. the nba is not the legal system. within our country he is free to have the beliefs he wish and is protected - he won't be going to jail over this. however, he is unfit to have a place (such a high profile one at that) in an organization with a) such public importance/visibility and b) major business sensitivities to issues such as this. let's not overthink this one - he needs to be removed from the nba via any mechanism they have available.

Keep in mind this conversation was secretly taped (legality of which is irrelevant) and not offered as a public statement. Mel Gibson was effectively ostracized for his private conversations but the Hollywood industry did not and could not levy action against him.

[1991 duke law]

Keep in mind this conversation was secretly taped (legality of which is irrelevant) and not offered as a public statement. Mel Gibson was effectively ostracized for his private conversations but the Hollywood industry did not and could not levy action against him.

This is a valid and good point. However, the NBA may very well go with the court of public opinion and simply slap him hard and not concern itself with anything beyond the public's desire for blood. No one told Mel that he was legally prohibited from acting in Hollywood after his tirade (which was done in public with no expectation of privacy) but others are comfortable with the notion of forcing Sterling to sell his franchise/business. Perhaps we put Mel, Sterling and the girlfriend in a ring and let them fight it out?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Keep in mind this conversation was secretly taped (legality of which is irrelevant) and not offered as a public statement. Mel Gibson was effectively ostracized for his private conversations but the Hollywood industry did not and could not levy action against him.

I think the Mel Gibson parallel is a good one. Now, if Mel were an employee and representative of an organization, he would likely have been axed/fined/sanctioned what-have you. And, it would not be a violation of his freedom of speech.

Makes me crazy - people think that "freedom of speech" means you can say what you want without consequence. "Freedom of speech" means that the government and legal system can't lock you up for whatever things you say.

I run a small business, and you can bet your bippy that if someone who worked for me made comments like Donald Sterling that were made public, I would go to great lengths to distance myself from them. In other words, we would no longer need their services.

[jipops]

I only checked a little ways up thread and didn't see this mentioned. But wow this is some bizarre twist... (http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/donald-sterling-was-set-to-receive-naacp-la-s-lifetime-achievement-award-042614) How was there even a notion of this by the NAACP to begin with?

[CALVET]

I think the Mel Gibson parallel is a good one. Now, if Mel were an employee and representative of an organization, he would likely have been axed/fined/sanctioned what-have you. And, it would not be a violation of his freedom of speech.

Makes me crazy - people think that "freedom of speech" means you can say what you want without consequence. "Freedom of speech" means that the government and legal system can't lock you up for whatever things you say.

I run a small business, and you can bet your bippy that if someone who worked for me made comments like Donald Sterling that were made public, I would go to great lengths to distance myself from them. In other words, we would no longer need their services.


As well you should, but I concur with DukeLaw in this regard: Trying someone in the court of public opinion is one thing especially if a post or statement was intentionally public, but if private conversations unintentionally made public can be used to remove any of us from our livelihood by an organization then ultimately any of us including NBA participants such as players, referees, or journalists are subject to a thought police slippery slope. Consider statements made in public by Karl Malone about playing with an HIV-positve Magic or Isaiah Thomas concerning Larry Bird. Now magnify that to imagine conversations of any NBA affiliated person, including other owners, made in private. Not that Donald Sterling could ever change but some people are at different stages of understanding or maturation, make faulty assumptions about someone, or maybe utter things under duress in private that they regret later.

[bob blue devil]

I am not sure that it is fair to hold a rich guy who owns a franchise to a different standard than you are I when it comes to a right to privacy when having discussions with a girlfriend/spouse in a private place. Being held to a higher level of scrutiny is different than having a lower right to privacy. So his actions in public and how he runs his business and how he treats people can be scrutinized in a way that you and i would not be exposed to. I think part of the problem here is that Sterling appears to have a terrible reputation and what he said in the tape is gross - so it is difficult to find any reason to lend any support to his situation. Notwithstanding this, I would suggest that privacy rights are the same for jerks and good people in the same fashion just as free speach is given to jerks and good people equally.

I'm not saying his rights are different, just that his expectations should be. Yeah, the girlfriend was wrong to air his dirty laundry, but who cares? That's between them. It doesn't change what he said and whether his views are compatible with being an nba owner.

[bob blue devil]

As well you should, but I concur with DukeLaw in this regard: Trying someone in the court of public opinion is one thing especially if a post or statement was intentionally public, but if private conversations unintentionally made public can be used to remove any of us from our livelihood by an organization then ultimately any of us including NBA participants such as players, referees, or journalists are subject to a thought police slippery slope. Consider statements made in public by Karl Malone about playing with an HIV-positve Magic or Isaiah Thomas concerning Larry Bird. Now magnify that to imagine conversations of any NBA affiliated person, including other owners, made in private. Not that Donald Sterling could ever change but some people are at different stages of understanding or maturation, make faulty assumptions about someone, or maybe utter things under duress in private that they regret later.

So you are saying nobody's private views should be considered relevant to their employment so long as they are not intentionally made public, is that right? (I tried hard to figure out what you meant to write)

[Duvall]

As well you should, but I concur with DukeLaw in this regard: Trying someone in the court of public opinion is one thing especially if a post or statement was intentionally public, but if private conversations unintentionally made public can be used to remove any of us from our livelihood by an organization then ultimately any of us including NBA participants such as players, referees, or journalists are subject to a thought police slippery slope.

You know this is absolutely the case now for most people, right? Sterling is different in that he is the owner of the Clippers, and not an employee, but unless you have a contract you can be fired for just about anything, including a "private conversation."

[CALVET]

You know this is absolutely the case now for most people, right? Sterling is different in that he is the owner of the Clippers, and not an employee, but unless you have a contract you can be fired for just about anything, including a "private conversation."

So a white owner of a business can fire a minority employee just because he overhead them standing in a grocery store line mumble the word "cracker" to a friend. I would like to see that hold up in court.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So a white owner of a business can fire a minority employee just because he overhead them standing in a grocery store line mumble the word "cracker" to a friend. I would like to see that hold up in court.

Wow, we are getting way off track. Labor law is a completely different animal.

I'll pitch it another way: if you don't judge someone by what they say and they believe, what do you choose to judge them by?

[lotusland]

As well you should, but I concur with DukeLaw in this regard: Trying someone in the court of public opinion is one thing especially if a post or statement was intentionally public, but if private conversations unintentionally made public can be used to remove any of us from our livelihood by an organization then ultimately any of us including NBA participants such as players, referees, or journalists are subject to a thought police slippery slope. Consider statements made in public by Karl Malone about playing with an HIV-positve Magic or Isaiah Thomas concerning Larry Bird. Now magnify that to imagine conversations of any NBA affiliated person, including other owners, made in private. Not that Donald Sterling could ever change but some people are at different stages of understanding or maturation, make faulty assumptions about someone, or maybe utter things under duress in private that they regret later.

He's toast. If the NBA is legally unable to oust him and he refuses to sell the franchise it will become a dumpster fire and he will be a pariah. Whatever he gained from being a franchise owner is gone. He won't even be be able to get his ego stroked sitting court side. Doc and the players will leave at the first opportunity and the whatever sponsorship the franchise has will be gone. No one will even want to be the official used car dealer of the Clippers. He cannot recover from this. Mel Gibson, Paula Dean, Don Imus and even Kramer from Seinfeld had some people who supported them and were willing to forgive.

[1991 duke law]

I'm not saying his rights are different, just that his expectations should be. Yeah, the girlfriend was wrong to air his dirty laundry, but who cares? That's between them. It doesn't change what he said and whether his views are compatible with being an nba owner.

I think that i have articulated my view pretty clearly. His attitude towards others (based on the tape) is actually incompatible with a tolerant society - the NBA is a side show. I do not believe that it is appropriate to tell someone that they cannot own a franchise because of comments taht he made in private to his girlfriend.

You note that it is "between them". You are 100% correct - it is between them when they have a discussion as a couple in private. And that is the crux of the issue here - that she took what was between them and made it between him and the whole world.

[CALVET]

So you are saying nobody's private views should be considered relevant to their employment so long as they are not intentionally made public, is that right? (I tried hard to figure out what you meant to write)

During the 50's, folks were fired for simply having pro-communist views. Though I don't subscribe to communism, I goes against everything I fought for to fire someone strictly because of a viewpoint.

[Duvall]

So a white owner of a business can fire a minority employee just because he overhead them standing in a grocery store line mumble the word "cracker" to a friend. I would like to see that hold up in court.

I'll take this to PMs.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

During the 50's, folks were fired for simply having pro-communist views. Though I don't subscribe to communism, I goes against everything I fought for to fire someone strictly because of a viewpoint.

No, in the 50's it was much worse than that... people were fired for rumors about their politics, not for being on record as saying things. Rumors and innuendo are one thing. Being caught on tape in a racist rant is something completely different.

This is going crazy sideways and has less and less to do with basketball. I vote to close this topic until there's more to discuss that has something to do with JJ Redick or the Clippers playoff run.

[1991 duke law]

No, in the 50's it was much worse than that... people were fired for rumors about their politics, not for being on record as saying things. Rumors and innuendo are one thing. Being caught on tape in a racist rant is something completely different.

This is going crazy sideways and has less and less to do with basketball. I vote to close this topic until there's more to discuss that has something to do with JJ Redick or the Clippers playoff run.

Well, we have beaten this to death so maybe it is time to move on.

How is JJ doing this year? I have not followed the NBA much.

[CALVET]

Wow, we are getting way off track. Labor law is a completely different animal.

I'll pitch it another way: if you don't judge someone by what they say and they believe, what do you choose to judge them by?

It wasn't off-track if it was a simple rebuttle. And judging someone is a lot different than taking away their livelihood.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well, we have beaten this to death so maybe it is time to move on.

How is JJ doing this year? I have not followed the NBA much.

Beats me, I can't stand the NBA. George Shinn ruined it for me 25 years ago or something.

I think JJ was injured for awhile?

[BD80]

He's toast. If the NBA is legally unable to oust him and he refuses to sell the franchise it will become a dumpster fire and he will be a pariah. Whatever he gained from being a franchise owner is gone. He won't even be be able to get his ego stroked sitting court side. Doc and the players will leave at the first opportunity and the whatever sponsorship the franchise has will be gone. No one will even want to be the official used car dealer of the Clippers. He cannot recover from this. Mel Gibson, Paula Dean, Don Imus and even Kramer from Seinfeld had some people who supported them and were willing to forgive.

Sterling is golden. He is laughing at everyone right now. The news is filled with stories of how rich he is, how he does whatever he likes, how he can drop a million $ + on a very attractive women six decades his junior.

Sure, he has the Clippers organization in crisis management mode, but so what? If the NBA tries to take the team, he'll fight in court for years, and hold them up for a premium - the lowly Bucks set the market last year, and the Clippers are in the #2 market in the nation. If he only gets 10 cents on the $, he'll still more than double his investment. The Clips will lose some advertising revenue, but it will come back - it did for Tiger.

Players and coaches will fuss, but when the Clips offer an extra million per year, the bench will fill up.

The truly enlightening passage in the taped "expose" was his comment that he was surprised that she didn't think like he wanted her to. If she didn't think like that, he could just go find another "girl" that does. Sterling buys the state of mind of his female companions. If you don't think the way he does (or refuse to pretend to) ... there's the door.

Atrocious

[bob blue devil]

You note that it is "between them". You are 100% correct - it is between them when they have a discussion as a couple in private. And that is the crux of the issue here - that she took what was between them and made it between him and the whole world.

That's the crux of your issue... I think there is a bigger issue.

[JasonEvans]

After some debate among the moderator team, the decision has been made to re-open this thread. It was closed because the discussion of privacy rights and punishing someone for a secretly recorded conversation had grown a little heated. But, the mods feel the community is capable of maintaining decorum in this thread going forward.

We know there are passionate disagreements about whether Mr. Sterling's privacy rights were violated by the recording of a private conversation. It is fairly clear that many of you have fixed views on this topic and continuing to debate it will not accomplish much of anything other than an escalation of feelings. So, we would ask that you avoid that debate in this thread going forward. Some of you may find it difficult to discuss this topic while not getting into a debate about privacy. If you fall into that camp, then just pretend like the thread is still closed and do not post. Posts that cross the line will be dealt with swiftly and harshly by the mod team. Consider yourselves warned!

One final note -- 99.9% of the posts on the DBR do not require more than a passing glance from the mod team. As a community, you all have done a fabulous job of knowing where the line is and not crossing it. When a couple people do get out of line, it sometimes requires us to shut down an entire conversation to keep the loud few from making this an unpleasant place for the calmer masses. We appreciate all of your understanding and cooperation when those times occur. We almost had one of those in this thread, but have instead decided to reopen the thread. Feel free to get back to having your normal intelligent, informative, and thoughtful conversation.

-Jason "we got this open just in time for Silver to completely change the conversation from speculation to reaction... Mr. Commish, I cede the floor to you!" Evans

[nmduke2001]

After some debate among the moderator team, the decision has been made to re-open this thread. It was closed because the discussion of privacy rights and punishing someone for a secretly recorded conversation had grown a little heated. But, the mods feel the community is capable of maintaining decorum in this thread going forward.

We know there are passionate disagreements about whether Mr. Sterling's privacy rights were violated by the recording of a private conversation. It is fairly clear that many of you have fixed views on this topic and continuing to debate it will not accomplish much of anything other than an escalation of feelings. So, we would ask that you avoid that debate in this thread going forward. Some of you may find it difficult to discuss this topic while not getting into a debate about privacy. If you fall into that camp, then just pretend like the thread is still closed and do not post. Posts that cross the line will be dealt with swiftly and harshly by the mod team. Consider yourselves warned!

One final note -- 99.9% of the posts on the DBR do not require more than a passing glance from the mod team. As a community, you all have done a fabulous job of knowing where the line is and not crossing it. When a couple people do get out of line, it sometimes requires us to shut down an entire conversation to keep the loud few from making this an unpleasant place for the calmer masses. We appreciate all of your understanding and cooperation when those times occur. We almost had one of those in this thread, but have instead decided to reopen the thread. Feel free to get back to having your normal intelligent, informative, and thoughtful conversation.

-Jason "we got this open just in time for Silver to completely change the conversation from speculation to reaction... Mr. Commish, I cede the floor to you!" Evans
Thank you for re-opening the thread. I believe that this conversation will get really interesting in an hour when the league has a press conference. The Duke connection being Adam Silver and how he manages this issue.

[DevilWearsPrada]

The conference will be at 2om.

This should be very interesting.

Good Luck to JJ Redick and the Clippers tonight !!!

[CALVET]

After some debate among the moderator team, the decision has been made to re-open this thread. It was closed because the discussion of privacy rights and punishing someone for a secretly recorded conversation had grown a little heated.

I apologize if my posts appeared as such but rest assured they were devoid of passion and only reflected pure principle. Donald Sterling is free in this great country to possess any warped or negative attitude he wants, even as an NBA owner. Players, coaches, and fans are also free to boycott and damage his finances thereby reducing his motivation to own an NBA team.

But to try to conform thinking through legal policy, for either government or business, is very dangerous. I say thinking because unless a statement is publicly released with intention, private statements are just as private as thoughts otherwise none of us will be entitled to privacy. I would say uncomfortable is really the emotion that comes to mind when I read suggestions otherwise.

Thanks for the Mods for their patience and confidence that different worldviews posting can navigate civil discourse with dignity. Please feel free to redact.

[mr. synellinden]

The conference will be at 2om.

This should be very interesting.

Good Luck to JJ Redick and the Clippers tonight !!!

TMZ reporting (http://www.tmz.com/) a multi-million dollar ($5M?) fine and indefinite suspension from the NBA, but that Sterling will not be forced to sell the team. And his family members are not subject to he suspension.

[Duvall]

Sterling is very strange. (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-nba-could-deliver-knockout-blow-to-donald-sterling-093958859.html)


When Sterling became reluctant to honor Rivers' sign-and-trade agreement for J.J. Redick, there was a belief race played a factor. As one league source said, "He thought it was too much to pay for a white player."

[CALVET]

TMZ reporting (http://www.tmz.com/) a multi-million dollar ($5M?) fine and indefinite suspension from the NBA, but that Sterling will not be forced to sell the team. And his family members are not subject to he suspension.


Usually fines are intended as a deterrent to future infractions of the same nature. Out of curiousity how would they really ascertain repeat offenses in private without illegally wiretapping or eavesdropping?

[DevilWearsPrada]

Commissioner Adam Silver is live on Espn!!!

[Ichabod Drain]

4095

[nmduke2001]

Lifetime ban and urging to board of governors to force sale.

[JasonEvans]

That was about as strong a response from Silver as was possible. Lifetime ban, $2.5 mil fine (the largest allowed by the NBA bylaws), and a strong push to force the sale of the team. If there was any question about Silver's ability to take a strong line with an owner, it has been thoroughly answered.

-Jason "Proud of our Dukie commissioner right now" Evans

[Here is a Turtle]

Forget the hammer, that was a nuke.

[nmduke2001]

Mark Cuban was concerned about a "slippery slope" apparently he isn't concerned anymore
@mcuban: I agree 100% with Commissioner Silvers findings and the actions taken against Donald Sterling

[gurufrisbee]

Adam Silver has already been a better commissioner in a couple months than Stern was for his entire career. Actually, that was true even before today - but today was very well done by him, as well.

[superdave]

I do not know the back story on the NBA buying the Hornets in 2010. Shinn tried to sell his majority stake to the minority owner, Gary Chouest, but the other owners did not like the price, disallowed the sale and bought it themselves (from what I recall). They operated the team for about 18-20 months then sold it to the Saints owner. But Shinn was a willing seller.

Based on this, I am guessing Silver has some method of trying to force the sale of the Clippers. But this could be where Donald Sterling picks a fight. There are very few situations in a free country like ours where one private entity can force another to sell their private property. We shall see.

Can the NBA stop paying revenue shares to Sterling? I would think there's no allowance for that and it would undermine the value of all NBA franchises.

Can the NBA contract the Clippers and pay Sterling market value for the franchise? They could then create a new franchise and sell it (to Magic Johnson). That seems more likely.

[alteran]

Mark Cuban was concerned about a "slippery slope" apparently he isn't concerned anymore
@mcuban: I agree 100% with Commissioner Silvers findings and the actions taken against Donald Sterling

Cuban is nothing if not media savvy, it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing on this one. Smart to cut his losses.

[BD80]

Wow. Silver can show Thor a thing or to about wielding a hammer. Crushed it. Literally.

It will be interesting to see if he gets the 3/4 vote to depose Sterling, and to see who votes and how.

Amusing that Silver vanished Sterling. Alchemy?

[superdave]

Mark Cuban was concerned about a "slippery slope" apparently he isn't concerned anymore
@mcuban: I agree 100% with Commissioner Silvers findings and the actions taken against Donald Sterling

Yeah, I dont know about this. Are they going to fine Michael Jordan $2.5 million for cheating on his wife? I would certainly rather have someone make racist comments about me than my wife to cheat on me.

I agree with Cuban's prior comment that this is a slippery slope. What if Sterling would have made a comment about not wanting a homosexual player on his team because of his religious beliefs?

This is all public policy territory, but what is the limitation on the league forcing an owner out?

[FerryFor50]

I think it's an appropriate response. As previous posters mentioned, Marge Schott is a solid precedent for this.

The NBA is a business with a large minority fan base, as well as minority employment. Having someone who selectively hates minorities (I say selectively due to the fact that he had a minority for a girlfriend) is not good for business, given the number of sponsors that were moving away from the Clippers.

Sterling spent years running that franchise into the ground, pinching every penny. It really wasn't until David Stern gifted him Chris Paul via trade that the *other* LA team became relevant again. Sterling's best move was getting out of the way of basketball decisions and opening the wallet a bit.

Getting Sterling out of the NBA is good for the NBA. The decision was heavy handed, but this is sort of a "lifetime achievement award" for Sterling. He's had years to build up to it. You can argue for or against privacy laws, but that's a legal matter for Sterling and his ex-girlfriend, not the NBA. The NBA did not commission the recording. It simply acted on the facts and as a business.

I find it odd that someone so bigoted would choose to be involved in businesses with such heavy patronage by minorities (NBA, real estate, etc). I guess his favorite color wasn't white, but green...

[FerryFor50]

Yeah, I dont know about this. Are they going to fine Michael Jordan $2.5 million for cheating on his wife? I would certainly rather have someone make racist comments about me than my wife to cheat on me.

I agree with Cuban's prior comment that this is a slippery slope. What if Sterling would have made a comment about not wanting a homosexual player on his team because of his religious beliefs?

This is all public policy territory, but what is the limitation on the league forcing an owner out?

People who cheat on their wives don't hurt the business. You don't see boycotts, sponsor losses, etc. Racists hurt the business, especially in a business that has a large minority fanbase.

[RoyalBlue08]

While I admit it isn't a scientific poll, judging by my twitter feed, Adam Silver is now the most popular man in America. Representing the University very well.

[alteran]

Yeah, I dont know about this. Are they going to fine Michael Jordan $2.5 million for cheating on his wife? I would certainly rather have someone make racist comments about me than my wife to cheat on me.

I agree with Cuban's prior comment that this is a slippery slope. What if Sterling would have made a comment about not wanting a homosexual player on his team because of his religious beliefs?

This is all public policy territory, but what is the limitation on the league forcing an owner out?

According to the news, that limitation is 3/4's of the owners voting to force the owner out for conduct detrimental to the league.

[superdave]

People who cheat on their wives don't hurt the business. You don't see boycotts, sponsor losses, etc. Racists hurt the business, especially in a business that has a large minority fanbase.

That was not my point. I was pointing out that MJ did something I felt worse than Sterling's behavior, yet the league never addressed him. Should they start addressing such behaviour? Or can they play moral police only when it hurts the brand? Because if you only enforce morality when it hurts the bottom line, then well, you are simply not a moral authority whatsoever.

Your code of conduct would have to be a couple hundred pages, or you would have no code of conduct and just follow the effects of behaviour on revenues.

Either way, this is definitely a slippery slope unless you clearly define what limitations you would be willing to use the 3/4 vote depose an owner.

[Reilly]

People who cheat on their wives don't hurt the business. You don't see boycotts, sponsor losses, etc. Racists hurt the business, especially in a business that has a large minority fanbase.

It's interesting to see how some transgressions or alleged transgressions provoke outrage and gain a hold in the public discourse, leading to action or maybe more swift action, and some transgressions are mostly forgotten. There's Kobe (Colorado), and JJ (girlfriend contract), and Sterling (minorities in boxes), and academic cheaters, and wife cheaters, and wife beaters, and drug users, and gambling cheaters, and drunk-driving killers in the sports landscape, and some capture the public's imagination producing a large outcy, and some just flicker for a day or two on TMZ and are largely forgotten.

[Bluedog]

Yeah, I dont know about this. Are they going to fine Michael Jordan $2.5 million for cheating on his wife? I would certainly rather have someone make racist comments about me than my wife to cheat on me.

I agree with Cuban's prior comment that this is a slippery slope. What if Sterling would have made a comment about not wanting a homosexual player on his team because of his religious beliefs?

This is all public policy territory, but what is the limitation on the league forcing an owner out?

Donald Sterling ALSO has been cheating on his wife for several years, so he's got both boxes checked. ;) I agree with FerryFor50, though, that's it's largely about what affects business. Clearly, having Sterling continuing to be the owner of the Clippers was simply going to be impossible. Didn't you know that our very own Grant Hill is the only faithful NBA player (http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2010/12/shaunie-oneal-grant-hill-is-only-faithful-man-in-the-nba/) (according to Shaunie O'Neal...)? ;)

Adam Silver sent the appropriate message.

[nmduke2001]

Do you think Nate James sent a personal invitation to let Adam Silver know about his entrance into the Bad a-- club?

[Reisen]

That was not my point. I was pointing out that MJ did something I felt worse than Sterling's behavior, yet the league never addressed him. Should they start addressing such behaviour? Or can they play moral police only when it hurts the brand? Because if you only enforce morality when it hurts the bottom line, then well, you are simply not a moral authority whatsoever.

Your code of conduct would have to be a couple hundred pages, or you would have no code of conduct and just follow the effects of behaviour on revenues.

Either way, this is definitely a slippery slope unless you clearly define what limitations you would be willing to use the 3/4 vote depose an owner.

They're not voting him out based on morality, they're voting him out based on the impact to the business. This clearly meets the definition of "conduct detrimental to the league".

I have the same reservations everyone else has from a morality / conformist / privacy perspective, but the business angle seems exceedingly clear to me. This is also why I don't think Silver will have a problem getting a 3/4 vote. The business consequences of not banning him will win out over the slippery slope argument. Cuban has already proven that.

[FerryFor50]

That was not my point. I was pointing out that MJ did something I felt worse than Sterling's behavior, yet the league never addressed him. Should they start addressing such behaviour? Or can they play moral police only when it hurts the brand? Because if you only enforce morality when it hurts the bottom line, then well, you are simply not a moral authority whatsoever.

Your code of conduct would have to be a couple hundred pages, or you would have no code of conduct and just follow the effects of behaviour on revenues.

Either way, this is definitely a slippery slope unless you clearly define what limitations you would be willing to use the 3/4 vote depose an owner.

No, I understood your point. I just don't feel like punishing a habitually racist owner is a slippery slope. In this country, we tolerate infidelities because it crosses all boundaries - gender, race, sexual preference, etc. And it's not a discrimination; it's simply bad behavior. While many of us do not approve of cheating on one's wife, we generally all agree it's not something to lose your job over.

However, what if you got caught cheating on your wife and you were president of a marriage counseling organization? Or a pastor? Then you'd probably start hearing calls for your job... Heck, we all heard calls for Bill Clinton's job when he got busted for cheating on his wife.

In the NBA, infidelity doesn't affect the bottom line. Racism does. A vast majority of this country does not tolerate intolerance (kind of oxymoronic, eh?). So that causes a trickle down effect of monetary loss.

Have you read up on Marge Schott? If not, you should:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott

MLB forced her to sell, more or less. And it didn't turn into a slippery slope. I don't expect this to, either. The guy who brought up the slippery slope? Mark Cuban? Well, if there was anyone who has reason to be afraid, it would be him, given his propensity to start fights with the league office. But I'd argue that if Cuban hasn't been banned yet, no owner will be banned for anything outside of hate speech or rape/murder.

Jim Irsay recently got a ban in the NFL for drugs, but it's not a lifetime ban. The leagues have to protect their brand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Irsay

[BD80]

The Clippers issued a statement "wholeheartedly support[ing] and embrac[ing] the decision"

[FerryFor50]

It's interesting to see how some transgressions or alleged transgressions provoke outrage and gain a hold in the public discourse, leading to action or maybe more swift action, and some transgressions are mostly forgotten. There's Kobe (Colorado), and JJ (girlfriend contract), and Sterling (minorities in boxes), and academic cheaters, and wife cheaters, and wife beaters, and drug users, and gambling cheaters, and drunk-driving killers in the sports landscape, and some capture the public's imagination producing a large outcy, and some just flicker for a day or two on TMZ and are largely forgotten.

It largely depends on timing and the moral landscape of the country. Over time, people may become less tolerant of infidelity. But given that infidelity happens with a large part of the population, I doubt it will gain much ground. Kobe was never convicted, so he's a bad example (though I still think he was probably guilty). JJ's girlfriend contract was never really an issue because I don't think it ever got fully confirmed and vetted.

There just seems to be a very low tolerance and high sensitivity to racism these days. It's a time bomb, but I'm glad it's happening. We need racism to go away (like, really go away) so we can move on to other worthy causes.

[Black Mambo]

That was not my point. I was pointing out that MJ did something I felt worse than Sterling's behavior, yet the league never addressed him. Should they start addressing such behaviour? Or can they play moral police only when it hurts the brand? Because if you only enforce morality when it hurts the bottom line, then well, you are simply not a moral authority whatsoever.

Your code of conduct would have to be a couple hundred pages, or you would have no code of conduct and just follow the effects of behaviour on revenues.

Either way, this is definitely a slippery slope unless you clearly define what limitations you would be willing to use the 3/4 vote depose an owner.

Yes, and exactly.

The NBA does not care about morality. The NBA cares about business. In this case, the two are aligned. If moral behavior and business were not aligned (see sordid history of DS, or anything else), the NBA does nothing. I pick on the NBA, but really this is about what's important to American entertainment industry. I dont want to say much more because this cannot (and should not) delve into a moral/public policy discussion, but in short, yes, the NBA is a business that aims to make money. That's it. Not doing the moral thing would lose money in this case.

If we as a society were outraged (and I mean outraged, not just think its kinda bad) about infidelity, then my guess is the NBA would do something about owner behavior in that regard. i wouldn't hold my breath though.

This is not a judgment on the sincerity of the response of the NBA Board of Governors, Adam Silver, etc.... I think the response from Silver was fantastic, and he spoke as if he was personally offended. But businesses in general tend to follow the direction of social thought. If they do not, they get boycotted and lose what they (the business entity) really care about.

[johnb]

Many "ethical" issues are heavily based on money, and I'd assume this one is as well. Fortunately, it makes good financial sense to not allow overt racism; just as our country needs women in the workforce, we need minorities to play basketball and buy products. I'd guess that the threat of a boycott (of products, advertising, and/or the games) was potentially more unnerving to the NBA than the fact that one of the owners was a jerk.

While Silver specifically said he didn't do a poll of the owners, I'd be willing to bet a nice dinner that the vote--assuming it's public--is unanimous. Even if the owner has misgivings, whether about the slippery slope, the severity of the penalty, or the weakening of the position of the owners vis-a-vis the administration and players, I really can't believe an owner would fall on his financial sword. These guys are rich at least partly because they heavily value money, and I doubt if any of them are likely to sabotage their own business interests by drawing a large target on their own backs.

Oh, and I assume Mrs. Sterling's presence at the game was her effort to remind people that she owns half; I assume she has to sell as well.

[Henderson]

I agree with Cuban's prior comment that this is a slippery slope. What if Sterling would have made a comment about not wanting a homosexual player on his team because of his religious beliefs?

I don't buy the slippery slope argument at all. Not all slopes are slippery, and even on those that are, you often know when you're at one end or the other. When you start injecting mitigating factors (such as religious beliefs deeply held), you've completely changed the narrative. This was an extreme case, not a precedent for completely different, completely hypothetical cases.

[Olympic Fan]

Let me join the chorus of those who are explaining that this has nothing to do with politics or philosophy or morality -- it's all about BUSINESS.

Donald Sterling has been a racist for a long time. The NBA has known that he was a racist (and an adulterer) for a long time. He's not being hammered for being a racist -- but because his racism created a media firestorm that threatens the profits of the league. If Michael Jordan's infidelities threaten profits, you can bet he'll be hammered too.

Watching ESPN's wall-to-wall response to the ruling, I thought there was an interesting debate between Jemelle Hill, who argued that the NBA should have acted much earlier (like years ago) and Steven A. Smith, who argued that even though NBA people knew privately about his racism, it wasn't something they could act on. The two discrimination lawsuits were settled out of court without an admission of guilt.

And Smith lambasts the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP for giving Sterling a lifetime achievement award ... and was on the verge of giving him a second achievement award when all this exploded. He pointed out that the NAACP gave a virulent racist public cover, making it impossible for the NBA to address his racism. How could the NBA fine or punish Sterling for racism when he was honored by the NAACP?

I'll be interested to see if there is any fallout for that organization ... or at least an explanation of why that was so anxious to honor a man with his record.

[Bluedog]

It largely depends on timing and the moral landscape of the country. Over time, people may become less tolerant of infidelity. But given that infidelity happens with a large part of the population, I doubt it will gain much ground. Kobe was never convicted, so he's a bad example (though I still think he was probably guilty). JJ's girlfriend contract was never really an issue because I don't think it ever got fully confirmed and vetted.

There just seems to be a very low tolerance and high sensitivity to racism these days. It's a time bomb, but I'm glad it's happening. We need racism to go away (like, really go away) so we can move on to other worthy causes.

He was never convicted of rape, but admitted to infidelity. (I agree with your post, though.)

[sagegrouse]

They're not voting him out based on morality, they're voting him out based on the impact to the business. This clearly meets the definition of "conduct detrimental to the league".

I have the same reservations everyone else has from a morality / conformist / privacy perspective, but the business angle seems exceedingly clear to me. This is also why I don't think Silver will have a problem getting a 3/4 vote. The business consequences of not banning him will win out over the slippery slope argument. Cuban has already proven that.


Wow. Silver can show Thor a thing or to about wielding a hammer. Crushed it. Literally.

It will be interesting to see if he gets the 3/4 vote to depose Sterling, and to see who votes and how.

Amusing that Silver vanished Sterling. Alchemy?

If I understand the situation (and there is always a first time), the league cannot literally compel an owner to sell a franchise. But, with a vote of 3/4 of the owners, the NBA owners can take away a franchise. This is the hammer that forces the sale.

[FerryFor50]

Let me join the chorus of those who are explaining that this has nothing to do with politics or philosophy or morality -- it's all about BUSINESS.

Donald Sterling has been a racist for a long time. The NBA has known that he was a racist (and an adulterer) for a long time. He's not being hammered for being a racist -- but because his racism created a media firestorm that threatens the profits of the league. If Michael Jordan's infidelities threaten profits, you can bet he'll be hammered too.

Watching ESPN's wall-to-wall response to the ruling, I thought there was an interesting debate between Jemelle Hill, who argued that the NBA should have acted much earlier (like years ago) and Steven A. Smith, who argued that even though NBA people knew privately about his racism, it wasn't something they could act on. The two discrimination lawsuits were settled out of court without an admission of guilt.

And Smith lambasts the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP for giving Sterling a lifetime achievement award ... and was on the verge of giving him a second achievement award when all this exploded. He pointed out that the NAACP gave a virulent racist public cover, making it impossible for the NBA to address his racism. How could the NBA fine or punish Sterling for racism when he was honored by the NAACP?

I'll be interested to see if there is any fallout for that organization ... or at least an explanation of why that was so anxious to honor a man with his record.

The NBA gave Sterling his own lifetime achievement award - banishment. :D

[Henderson]

Question: According to Adam Silver, Sterling is barred from participating in business decisions for the Clippers and from participating in player personnel decisions.

So if he can't participate but remains the owner of the team, who is the ultimate decider on business and player personnel decisions? Assuming it's Executive A, who decides whether that person stays or goes and what his/her salary is? Where does the buck stop if not with the owner?

[superdave]

No, I understood your point. I just don't feel like punishing a habitually racist owner is a slippery slope. In this country, we tolerate infidelities because it crosses all boundaries - gender, race, sexual preference, etc. And it's not a discrimination; it's simply bad behavior. While many of us do not approve of cheating on one's wife, we generally all agree it's not something to lose your job over.

However, what if you got caught cheating on your wife and you were president of a marriage counseling organization? Or a pastor? Then you'd probably start hearing calls for your job... Heck, we all heard calls for Bill Clinton's job when he got busted for cheating on his wife.

In the NBA, infidelity doesn't affect the bottom line. Racism does. A vast majority of this country does not tolerate intolerance (kind of oxymoronic, eh?). So that causes a trickle down effect of monetary loss.

Have you read up on Marge Schott? If not, you should:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott

MLB forced her to sell, more or less. And it didn't turn into a slippery slope. I don't expect this to, either. The guy who brought up the slippery slope? Mark Cuban? Well, if there was anyone who has reason to be afraid, it would be him, given his propensity to start fights with the league office. But I'd argue that if Cuban hasn't been banned yet, no owner will be banned for anything outside of hate speech or rape/murder.

Jim Irsay recently got a ban in the NFL for drugs, but it's not a lifetime ban. The leagues have to protect their brand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Irsay

I wish I could remember the exact story bu here's the gist: a Houston Rockets player faked an injury (team was apparently helpful to his efforts) so he would not have to take a road trip to a state where there was a paternity suit/child support issue that the player had been skipping out on. The player avoided an active arrest warrant and the team helped.

Does that hurt the brand? Should the league have a ranking system here?

I truly wonder whether Silver will get 3/4 of the votes. Because it's Sterling and he's no one's favorite because of unrelated issues (not exactly trying to field competitive teams each year or pay to be competitive), I think Sterling's ownership is gone. But a lot of owners will have to be wary of seeing an owner disappear over night.

[Henderson]

What's the over/under on how long it takes someone over at IC to claim that this is a maneuver by Silver somehow to advantage Duke?

[superdave]

Let me join the chorus of those who are explaining that this has nothing to do with politics or philosophy or morality -- it's all about BUSINESS.

Donald Sterling has been a racist for a long time. The NBA has known that he was a racist (and an adulterer) for a long time. He's not being hammered for being a racist -- but because his racism created a media firestorm that threatens the profits of the league. If Michael Jordan's infidelities threaten profits, you can bet he'll be hammered too.

Watching ESPN's wall-to-wall response to the ruling, I thought there was an interesting debate between Jemelle Hill, who argued that the NBA should have acted much earlier (like years ago) and Steven A. Smith, who argued that even though NBA people knew privately about his racism, it wasn't something they could act on. The two discrimination lawsuits were settled out of court without an admission of guilt.

And Smith lambasts the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP for giving Sterling a lifetime achievement award ... and was on the verge of giving him a second achievement award when all this exploded. He pointed out that the NAACP gave a virulent racist public cover, making it impossible for the NBA to address his racism. How could the NBA fine or punish Sterling for racism when he was honored by the NAACP?

I'll be interested to see if there is any fallout for that organization ... or at least an explanation of why that was so anxious to honor a man with his record.

This is a good post. Thanks for pointing out how the NBA looked the other way.

Bill Simmons wrote a few years back that he hated buying Clips season tickets because the money went to Sterling. He settled the matter within his own mind by promising to write about how awful a person Sterling is (citing the housing discrimination issues).

So the NBA looked the other way until the players were close to boycott and the story wouldnt go away? I just dont find that very comforting. On the one hand, the NBA is a business but on the other hand everyone treats it like something we all own a stake in which is basketball or athletic competition in general where everyone involved is there by privilege but not by right.

[FerryFor50]

I wish I could remember the exact story bu here's the gist: a Houston Rockets player faked an injury (team was apparently helpful to his efforts) so he would not have to take a road trip to a state where there was a paternity suit/child support issue that the player had been skipping out on. The player avoided an active arrest warrant and the team helped.

Does that hurt the brand? Should the league have a ranking system here?

I truly wonder whether Silver will get 3/4 of the votes. Because it's Sterling and he's no one's favorite because of unrelated issues (not exactly trying to field competitive teams each year or pay to be competitive), I think Sterling's ownership is gone. But a lot of owners will have to be wary of seeing an owner disappear over night.

Was it the Tracy McGrady story?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080619/BREAKING/377867749

Or maybe Robert Horry?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-07-22/sports/9407220175_1_paternity-test-famer-calvin-murphy-rockets-star

As to your question, "does avoiding arrest warrants hurt the brand," I'd say it depends on what the crime was. For paternity? No. It's scummy that the player and org would do that, but I don't think it would hurt ticket sales. I think you'd get women's rights orgs protesting, and the league might fine the team, but public opinion would probably not sway too much.

Now, what if the player had killed someone and the team was hiding evidence (similar to the Baylor case years ago)? Then yea, that would hurt the brand and the league would come down HARD.

[Monmouth77]

No, I understood your point. I just don't feel like punishing a habitually racist owner is a slippery slope. In this country, we tolerate infidelities because it crosses all boundaries - gender, race, sexual preference, etc. And it's not a discrimination; it's simply bad behavior. While many of us do not approve of cheating on one's wife, we generally all agree it's not something to lose your job over.

However, what if you got caught cheating on your wife and you were president of a marriage counseling organization? Or a pastor? Then you'd probably start hearing calls for your job... Heck, we all heard calls for Bill Clinton's job when he got busted for cheating on his wife.

In the NBA, infidelity doesn't affect the bottom line. Racism does. A vast majority of this country does not tolerate intolerance (kind of oxymoronic, eh?). So that causes a trickle down effect of monetary loss.

Have you read up on Marge Schott? If not, you should:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott

MLB forced her to sell, more or less. And it didn't turn into a slippery slope. I don't expect this to, either. The guy who brought up the slippery slope? Mark Cuban? Well, if there was anyone who has reason to be afraid, it would be him, given his propensity to start fights with the league office. But I'd argue that if Cuban hasn't been banned yet, no owner will be banned for anything outside of hate speech or rape/murder.

Jim Irsay recently got a ban in the NFL for drugs, but it's not a lifetime ban. The leagues have to protect their brand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Irsay

I agree with all of this but would add that it's not just about brand protection and potential economic damage -- which is a reflection of what fans think (and how they vote with their dollars). It is also about the players. You have a guy running an NBA franchise who regards his players as sub-human chattel, and who can't see past race far enough to break bread in his luxury box with one of the greatest players of all time. He doesn't respect the players and he doesn't respect the game. You can't let a guy like that own a team. If his views were known ab initio and he tried to buy a team they'd never let him do it-- even if he was willing to pay top dollar. The NBA is a league with rules and standards, and Silver is acting here to uphold the league's cultural norms (not to mention, to act as a steward for basic human decency).

By the way, the idea that Sterling's ouster is some affront to private property ownership completely misunderstands the context. This isn't the owners zeroing out his asset value and leaving him with nothing. He'll get market value for his investment (which will be a mindboggling windfall over and beyond his $12 million initial investment). He owns his interests subject to the rule that at any time 3/4 of his colleagues can force him to sell. That's a limitation inherent in his property right.

And please spare me the slippery slope. I don't think we'll be seeing 3/4 of the owners ousting a fellow owner again any time soon. If it happens, he'll probably deserve it -- like Sterling does.

[brevity]

What's the over/under on how long it takes someone over at IC to claim that this is a maneuver by Silver somehow to advantage Duke?

+/- 0:00?

The Inside Carolina off-topic board has a couple of Donald Sterling threads, and someone tempered the overall approval of Silver by pointing out his Duke affiliation. Not exactly what you wanted, but the time stamp of that post was the same as yours here.

[FerryFor50]

I agree with all of this but would add that it's not just about brand protection and potential economic damage -- which is a reflection of what fans think (and how they vote with their dollars). It is also about the players. You have a guy running an NBA franchise who regards his players as sub-human chattel, and who can't see past race far enough to break bread in his luxury box with one of the greatest players of all time. He doesn't respect the players and he doesn't respect the game. You can't let a guy like that own a team. If his views were known ab initio and he tried to buy a team they'd never let him do it-- even if he was willing to pay top dollar. The NBA is a league with rules and standards, and Silver is acting here to uphold the league's cultural norms (not to mention, to act as a steward for basic human decency).

By the way, the idea that Sterling's ouster is some affront to private property ownership completely misunderstands the context. This isn't the owners zeroing out his asset value and leaving him with nothing. He'll get market value for his investment (which will be a mindboggling windfall over and beyond his $12 million initial investment). He owns his interests subject to the rule that at any time 3/4 of his colleagues can force him to sell. That's a limitation inherent in his property right.

And please spare me the slippery slope. I don't think we'll be seeing 3/4 of the owners ousting a fellow owner again any time soon. If it happens, he'll probably deserve it -- like Sterling does.

Agreed. And here's another interesting aspect...

Who is in line to buying the Clippers if Sterling is forced to sell?

Magic Johnson (http://nba.si.com/2014/04/28/magic-johnson-los-angeles-clippers-donald-sterling/)

So not only does the NBA get rid of the racist owner who runs the team poorly, they get one of the most popular and affable players of this generation (especially in the LA area) to buy the team. A guy that isn't afraid to spend money, as he's shown with his Dodgers ownership (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7745566/los-angeles-dodgers-selling-team-magic-johnson-group-2b). Also, Magic is conveniently the guy Sterling specifically called out in his comments.

Best of both worlds, for the league, and poetic justice for us plebes. :)

[Black Mambo]

29? or 30?

What happens if 22 owners agree?

22/29 = 75.86%

22/30 = 73.33%

An argument could be made for 29 since Sterling's ouster is immediate, and hence there are only 29 votes available.

Sorry, I am an engineering professor.

In any case, I hope the vote is public...in which case it would probably be unanimous. But maybe they would have to vote on whether the votes are public. Would that vote be unanimous? And public?

Is the answer to this question another question? :p

[alteran]

So the NBA looked the other way until the players were close to boycott and the story wouldnt go away? I just dont find that very comforting. On the one hand, the NBA is a business but on the other hand everyone treats it like something we all own a stake in which is basketball or athletic competition in general where everyone involved is there by privilege but not by right.

I don't think that the NBA looked the other way, I don't think there was anything they could realistically do.

Sterling was clever enough and slippery enough to settle cases with gag clauses or without admitting to racism, and he was savvy enough to give money to the local NAACP and gain cover for his misdeeds. People knew he was a pig, but they didn't really have the momentum necessary to get rid of him or the proof to take other actions.

He finally went too far, and a lifetime of alienating people made him easy to isolate and oust.

Realistically, this was the first opportunity the NBA had to do something significant about it, and they did.

[FerryFor50]

In any case, I hope the vote is public...in which case it would probably be unanimous. But maybe they would have to vote on whether the votes are public. Would that vote be unanimous? And public?


Yea, you wouldn't want to be outed as the owner who voted *for* Sterling. ;)

[SoCalDukeFan]

I think that Cuban's "slippery slope" was the Commissioner taking away a team because of something the owner said. Putting it in the hands of the other owners and a 3/4 vote is a much different matter. I can see why he had a problem with the idea of the Commissioner taking away the team but not with a 3/4 vote of the owners.

The decision may have been primarily business oriented, but I am glad that Silver did what he did and as swiftly as he did.

Question - What will Sterling do? I would assume that Silver knows he had the authority to do what he did so while Sterling can sue, I would guess it would be futile. I think Sterling enjoyed taking his friends to games and commanding the courtside seats, that is no more. Somehow I don't see him just selling.

SoCal

[BD80]

Sterling stating that the Clippers are not for sale

[superdave]

29? or 30?

What happens if 22 owners agree?

22/29 = 75.86%

22/30 = 73.33%

An argument could be made for 29 since Sterling's ouster is immediate, and hence there are only 29 votes available.

Sorry, I am an engineering professor.

In any case, I hope the vote is public...in which case it would probably be unanimous. But maybe they would have to vote on whether the votes are public. Would that vote be unanimous? And public?

Is the answer to this question anorther question? :p

I guess there is something in the bylaws stating whether you can vote at your own disciplinary hearing.

I would assume the league will move quickly to hold the hearing. You can bet it wont be live though, unless it's a unanimous vote.

[FerryFor50]

Sterling stating that the Clippers are not for sale

I think we've already determined that Sterling is a bit delusional...

[superdave]

Sterling stating that the Clippers are not for sale

I wonder if his final instructions to the person he appoints to manage the team could devalue the franchise. Imagine if Sterling knows he will get market value within 6-8 weeks, but he has his appointee make off with all Clippers memorabilia, or sells future marketing rights for a pittance, or ties up the salary cap on Day 1 of free agency.

He seems like the type of guy who will fight this to the bitter end.

Practically speaking, they should contract and dissolve the franchise. I am sure Silver will be working 24/7 to think all the possibilities through to protect against short term issues.

[Black Mambo]

Sterling stating that the Clippers are not for sale

Link?

[Bluedog]

29? or 30?

What happens if 22 owners agree?

22/29 = 75.86%

22/30 = 73.33%

An argument could be made for 29 since Sterling's ouster is immediate, and hence there are only 29 votes available.

Sorry, I am an engineering professor.

In any case, I hope the vote is public...in which case it would probably be unanimous. But maybe they would have to vote on whether the votes are public. Would that vote be unanimous? And public?

Is the answer to this question another question? :p

Maybe his estranged wife will have the vote for the Clippers. She does, in fact, own 50% of them, right? :cool:

[BD80]

Link?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3520643610001/jim-gray-donald-sterling-says-clippers-not-for-sale/#sp=show-clips

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2014-04-29/donald-sterling-clippers-not-for-sale-lifetime-ban-25-million-fine?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[InSpades]

I wonder if his final instructions to the person he appoints to manage the team could devalue the franchise. Imagine if Sterling knows he will get market value within 6-8 weeks, but he has his appointee make off with all Clippers memorabilia, or sells future marketing rights for a pittance, or ties up the salary cap on Day 1 of free agency.

He seems like the type of guy who will fight this to the bitter end.

Practically speaking, they should contract and dissolve the franchise. I am sure Silver will be working 24/7 to think all the possibilities through to protect against short term issues.

The best outcome for the NBA is a quick sale this offseason. Wash their hands entirely of Donald Sterling.

I don't think contracting a franchise is a good move. What happens to the Clippers fans? To the Clippers players? What do you do w/ the new team? It's kind of a mess.

As an owner I would think this was the right outcome. At the same time you can't help be worried that this could be you one day. There's very few people without a few skeletons in their closet. I really doubt Donald Sterling was the worst offender. He's just the one that got caught.

[FerryFor50]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3520643610001/jim-gray-donald-sterling-says-clippers-not-for-sale/#sp=show-clips

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2014-04-29/donald-sterling-clippers-not-for-sale-lifetime-ban-25-million-fine?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Whoa! How'd you find that? Google? :p

[BD80]

Maybe his estranged wife will have the vote for the Clippers. She does, in fact, own 50% of them, right? :cool:

I believe they are still married, and that her claim is that of community property in the marital estate. I don't think she has any specific ownership rights in the team ...

Yet

This might be an apt time to "strike while the iron is hot." If she files for divorce, the Donald west would be caught in a pincer action - arguing in divorce court that the Clippers are less valuable while arguing in NBA arbitration that the Clippers are more valuable.

[dukelifer]

That was about as strong a response from Silver as was possible. Lifetime ban, $2.5 mil fine (the largest allowed by the NBA bylaws), and a strong push to force the sale of the team. If there was any question about Silver's ability to take a strong line with an owner, it has been thoroughly answered.

-Jason "Proud of our Dukie commissioner right now" Evans

Silver did great - no doubt. My first reaction was that Sterling is 80 years old- a lifetime ban is probably equivalent to 10 at max. That said, it really helped Silver that Sterling has almost no real friends out there on this one. Having to do this for a more popular owner would have been very hard. Sterling was on very shaky ground anyway, and Silver just let him have it. The players are giving Silver huge props for looking out for their interests here. A great start to being the commish.

[BD80]

Whoa! How'd you find that? Google? :p

Twitter :o

[FerryFor50]

My first reaction was that Sterling is 80 years old

As Bill Maher said:

"Donald Sterling is 81. You know what will cure this type of racism? The flu."

[BD80]

Silver did great - no doubt. ... Sterling was on very shaky ground anyway, and Silver just let him have it. The players are giving Silver huge props for looking out for their interests here. A great start to being the commish.

Wonder if this will help Silver with the 20/2 agenda? Has he won himself the trust of the players? Was there a deal behind the scenes? (I'll whack Sterling if you guys give me the new age limit?)

[superdave]

The best outcome for the NBA is a quick sale this offseason. Wash their hands entirely of Donald Sterling.

I don't think contracting a franchise is a good move. What happens to the Clippers fans? To the Clippers players? What do you do w/ the new team? It's kind of a mess.

As an owner I would think this was the right outcome. At the same time you can't help be worried that this could be you one day. There's very few people without a few skeletons in their closet. I really doubt Donald Sterling was the worst offender. He's just the one that got caught.

The Hornets are becoming the Hornets again, although as a different franchise entity. I guess you contract, pay off the owner, create a new franchise, sell it it to the next owner. You could probably do it simultaneously.

One alternative would be to depose the owner and force the sale. Another alternative would be for the league to take over the team until the dust settles. No one was left happy when the New Orleans franchise was owned by the league though, mainly because Stern nixed the Chris Paul trade to the Lakers.

Stuff like this is where guys like Cuban justifiably get their suspicion of the league and the commissioner's office from. His knee jerk reaction is to say slow down and I think he's right. Sterling deserves about 15 minutes to make his case to the owners before a vote. Silver should also make his case as well and show some detail to how he would like to handle this.

[1991 duke law]

the best outcome for the nba is a quick sale this offseason. Wash their hands entirely of donald sterling.

I don't think contracting a franchise is a good move. What happens to the clippers fans? To the clippers players? What do you do w/ the new team? It's kind of a mess.

As an owner i would think this was the right outcome. At the same time you can't help be worried that this could be you one day. There's very few people without a few skeletons in their closet. I really doubt donald sterling was the worst offender. He's just the one that got caught.

well said.

[Here is a Turtle]

Maybe they could contract the Clippers, create a new franchise and move it to Anaheim like the NBA wanted to do in the 90s if Sterling does not want to do business. It would also help get the Clippers out of the Lakers shadow.

[nmduke2001]

I think the largest chip that Silver has to force the sale is to threaten to allow all players to become free agents. The current estimates on the Clippers is $1 billion+. I would guess that number would go down significantly without Chris Paul and Blake Griffin.

[superdave]

I think the largest chip that Silver has to force the sale is to threaten to allow all players to become free agents. The current estimates on the Clippers is $1 billion+. I would guess that number would go down significantly without Chris Paul and Blake Griffin.

Can the commissioner nullify contracts the league has already approved? That's another bad precedent. I think the 3/4 vote to depose or the contraction idea have more legal basis. More likely would be Paul and Griffin demanding trades or sitting out until Sterling sells.

Silver has to follow the rules to a t lest Sterling have a case in court. It's not like Sterling cares to leave the money to any children, spouses or mistresses. His legal fund is pretty large.

[jimsumner]

Maybe they could contract the Clippers, create a new franchise and move it to Anaheim like the NBA wanted to do in the 90s if Sterling does not want to do business. It would also help get the Clippers out of the Lakers shadow.

Seattle would like to play ball.

[BD80]

4096

[Des Esseintes]

Can the commissioner nullify contracts the league has already approved? That's another bad precedent. I think the 3/4 vote to depose or the contraction idea have more legal basis. More likely would be Paul and Griffin demanding trades or sitting out until Sterling sells.

Silver has to follow the rules to a t lest Sterling have a case in court. It's not like Sterling cares to leave the money to any children, spouses or mistresses. His legal fund is pretty large.

Contracts are with the team, not the league. So Silver could not nullify them. Moreover, to do so might well damage many of the players, and would thus not be seen as a particularly useful outcome. CP3 and Blake could improve their situations by getting new deals, but an older player might struggle to match the value of what had been guaranteed in his existing deal. In any event, it won't happen.

Further, I think we can go easy on the "slippery slope" fears generally. Does anyone think this situation is going to lead to any other owners being ousted in American sports? Sterling was a unique situation, with a unique history of racial bigotry both in his athletic dealings and real estate empire. If something similar happens within the next decade in any of the Big Four sports, I will be amazed.

[Reisen]

Further, I think we can go easy on the "slippery slope" fears generally. Does anyone think this situation is going to lead to any other owners being ousted in American sports? Sterling was a unique situation, with a unique history of racial bigotry both in his athletic dealings and real estate empire. If something similar happens within the next decade in any of the Big Four sports, I will be amazed.

Just a few days over 15 years ago, Marge Schott still owned the Cincinnati Reds. Similar scandals hit movie stars all the time (think Alec Baldwin, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson). I can think of multiple famous Hollywood directors accused of sexually abusing minors (Polanski, Allen, Singer).

I think it is a near certainty that multiple other owners in the big four sports have skeletons in their closet capable of generating this level of outrage. When your life is under a microscope, TMZ is everywhere (and willing to pay), and twitter promises instant promulgation of anything that goes viral, it can be very hard to keep those opinions/skeletons hidden. Just ask Paula Deen, Mitt Romney, or Brendan Eich.

[sagegrouse]

Can the commissioner nullify contracts the league has already approved? That's another bad precedent. I think the 3/4 vote to depose or the contraction idea have more legal basis. More likely would be Paul and Griffin demanding trades or sitting out until Sterling sells.

Silver has to follow the rules to a t lest Sterling have a case in court. It's not like Sterling cares to leave the money to any children, spouses or mistresses. His legal fund is pretty large.

According to the lengthy Q&A article on ESPN.COM this AM, the NBA agreement among the owners is 100s of pages long and lays out in great detail what the NBA powers are. For those areas where the Commish or the owners have power to act, there is no appeal or ability to sue (the owners, at least, have all signed such a document). This will be the main arena of action against Sterling.

[bob blue devil]

best case for sterling - $2.5mm fine (take it from petty cash), owners do not vote him out for fear of setting a precedent for their own ousters, he takes a few years away from the clips to work on his image and earn a 3rd naacp lifetime achievement award, memories fade and all is forgiven - his lifetime ban is ended. is that possible? is this america? god bless america!

[Des Esseintes]

Just a few days over 15 years ago, Marge Schott still owned the Cincinnati Reds. Similar scandals hit movie stars all the time (think Alec Baldwin, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson). I can think of multiple famous Hollywood directors accused of sexually abusing minors (Polanski, Allen, Singer).

I think it is a near certainty that multiple other owners in the big four sports have skeletons in their closet capable of generating this level of outrage. When your life is under a microscope, TMZ is everywhere (and willing to pay), and twitter promises instant promulgation of anything that goes viral, it can be very hard to keep those opinions/skeletons hidden. Just ask Paula Deen, Mitt Romney, or Brendan Eich.

Agreed that public figures get themselves in hot water all the time. But the owner of a sports franchise is a different thing than a movie star. The Marge Schott case is much more applicable than Mel Gibson's madness. If something of this nature happens once every 15 years, I'd say that's fine, right? It means exceptional circumstances are necessary to get a league to act while also showing that there are behavioral limits beyond which the privilege of owning the public institution that is a sports franchise is no longer tenable.

[Monmouth77]

I think it is a near certainty that multiple other owners in the big four sports have skeletons in their closet capable of generating this level of outrage.

I would really hope not, and I think it is unlikely -- and gets unlikelier still as time goes by and Sterling's generation ages and is replaced by a more tolerant younger generation raised to value racial and ethnic diversity.

Again, the situation with Sterling is not about just any old "skeletons." And he didn't "just" use a racial slur one time (or even many times). He espoused a set of views that are uniquely toxic and antithetical to the modern NBA, and to 21st Century America. The stuff he said made him seem like an apartheid-era owner of a majority black soccer team in South Africa. It was outrageous. After all, this is the NBA, where the owners are mostly white and the players are mostly black. It hits home. It resonates. And when you layer it on top of his history, and we begin to learn that he has been accused in the past of actually *acting* on these ideas and treating Elgin Baylor and Danny Manning and Magic Johnson and others with this sort of vile, racist disrespect, and you see the lawsuits for housing discrimination, and you layer it on top of the fact that the guy has been a deadbeat owner for 30 years -- now you get a set of conditions where 3/4 of the NBA owners are willing (probably -- we'll see) to cut him loose.

[WakeDevil]

When is the NBA going to ask Vladimir Putin to return the jersey it gave him?

[bob blue devil]

"the true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching." i don't buy the argument that we should judge others by the public persona they seek to project, and ignore the dirt they'd rather have private. the truth is what it is.

as des esseintes points out, nba owner is a privileged position. to augment that point, it is a role of leadership where the person is a steward of community interest. i think someone in that role should be held to the standards of their community. they do not deserve to have their privileged role be protected by the fullest safeguards of the law - those safeguards are in place to protect liberties, not privileges.

[gus]

When is the NBA going to ask Vladimir Putin to return the jersey it gave him?

As soon as Kraft gets his super bowl ring back.

[Des Esseintes]

When is the NBA going to ask Vladimir Putin to return the jersey it gave him?

Trivialize much? As Monmouth mentions above, the Sterling affair goes to the very heart of the NBA. The ecstatic response (http://nba.si.com/2014/04/29/donald-sterling-adam-silver-nba-reaction-magic-johnson-mark-cuban/?eref=sihp) from a host of the most respected current and former players speaks to the vital importance of a robust response. The Putin jersey nobody cares about. Lots of unpleasant people have received free t-shirts over the years. To compare that to having a man with Sterling's racist history and behaviors in control of a franchise in America's most black-identified sports league is, I'm sorry, profoundly insulting.

[Duvall]

I really wish Jumbo were still around to give his thoughts on this.

[CALVET]

"the true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching." i don't buy the argument that we should judge others by the public persona they seek to project, and ignore the dirt they'd rather have private. the truth is what it is.

as des esseintes points out, nba owner is a privileged position. to augment that point, it is a role of leadership where the person is a steward of community interest. i think someone in that role should be held to the standards of their community. they do not deserve to have their privileged role be protected by the fullest safeguards of the law - those safeguards are in place to protect liberties, not privileges.

Who decides what those standards are because most professional sports team owners don't live according to the standards of many people I know in those respective communities...and that's just considering public behavior.

[Mudge]

Just a few days over 15 years ago, Marge Schott still owned the Cincinnati Reds. Similar scandals hit movie stars all the time (think Alec Baldwin, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson). I can think of multiple famous Hollywood directors accused of sexually abusing minors (Polanski, Allen, Singer).

I think it is a near certainty that multiple other owners in the big four sports have skeletons in their closet capable of generating this level of outrage. When your life is under a microscope, TMZ is everywhere (and willing to pay), and twitter promises instant promulgation of anything that goes viral, it can be very hard to keep those opinions/skeletons hidden. Just ask Paula Deen, Mitt Romney, or Brendan Eich.

Speaking of Marge Schott, her faux pas was a public comment (in some kind of interview, if I recall)-- she was ultimately sanctioned for that... but I heard Mark Cuban (much as I dislike him) raise what seemed like a valid point, that Sterling was apparently recorded while he was speaking in a private setting (I'm not sure-- was this a phone call that was recorded, or was this a face-to-face conversation that was recorded?)-- and I also don't know if it was recorded without his knowledge and/or approval (though I tend to doubt that he was asked for or gave his consent to record the comments in question)-- anyway, Cuban's point was, in so many words, are we now saying that people cannot have private thoughts (expressed privately), without being sanctioned? More generally, I guess I am asking the cohort of lawyers that read this site: What rights does Sterling have, in this instance, to be protected from financial censure, for things that he said in the privacy of his own home (presumably).

Even if we disagree with him, nothing Sterling said was illegal (which would be a different matter, even if done privately); are we really saying that Donald Sterling is not allowed to say what he thinks, privately, in his own home-- without being subject to sanction? Who here has not had thoughts or made statements of one sort or another, that many other people might find objectionable? Would you really want any or all of your personal conversations to be subject for review, to decide whether your personal property rights and finances could be infringed or reduced? If you criticize your boss or your employer in the privacy of your home, should you be able to be fired or fined for doing so (assume for argument's sake that you are not an "at-will" employee)?

[Duvall]

More generally, I guess I am asking the cohort of lawyers that read this site: What rights does Sterling have, in this instance, to be protected from financial censure, for things that he said in the privacy of his own home (presumably).

Without getting into questions of privacy rights generally, I think the place to look is the NBA Constitution and By-laws (http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf), now available online.

[CALVET]

Speaking of Marge Schott, her faux pas was a public comment (in some kind of interview, if I recall)-- she was ultimately sanctioned for that... but I heard Mark Cuban (much as I dislike him) raise what seemed like a valid point, that Sterling was apparently recorded while he was speaking in a private setting (I'm not sure-- was this a phone call that was recorded, or was this a face-to-face conversation that was recorded?)-- and I also don't know if it was recorded without his knowledge and/or approval (though I tend to doubt that he was asked for or gave his consent to record the comments in question)-- anyway, Cuban's point was, in so many words, are we now saying that people cannot have private thoughts (expressed privately), without being sanctioned? More generally, I guess I am asking the cohort of lawyers that read this site: What rights does Sterling have, in this instance, to be protected from financial censure, for things that he said in the privacy of his own home (presumably).

Even if we disagree with him, nothing Sterling said was illegal (which would be a different matter, even if done privately); are we really saying that Donald Sterling is not allowed to say what he thinks, privately, in his own home-- without being subject to sanction? Who here has not had thoughts or made statements of one sort or another, that many other people might find objectionable? Would you really want any or all of your personal conversations to be subject for review, to decide whether your personal property rights and finances could be infringed or reduced? If you criticize your boss or your employer in the privacy of your home, should you be able to be fired or fined for doing so (assume for argument's sake that you are not an "at-will" employee)?

Today simply replaced one kind of intolerance for another. We will undoubted see application of this extended well beyond sports because so many are defending it.

[Des Esseintes]

Speaking of Marge Schott, her faux pas was a public comment (in some kind of interview, if I recall)-- she was ultimately sanctioned for that... but I heard Mark Cuban (much as I dislike him) raise what seemed like a valid point, that Sterling was apparently recorded while he was speaking in a private setting (I'm not sure-- was this a phone call that was recorded, or was this a face-to-face conversation that was recorded?)-- and I also don't know if it was recorded without his knowledge and/or approval (though I tend to doubt that he was asked for or gave his consent to record the comments in question)-- anyway, Cuban's point was, in so many words, are we now saying that people cannot have private thoughts (expressed privately), without being sanctioned? More generally, I guess I am asking the cohort of lawyers that read this site: What rights does Sterling have, in this instance, to be protected from financial censure, for things that he said in the privacy of his own home (presumably).

Even if we disagree with him, nothing Sterling said was illegal (which would be a different matter, even if done privately); are we really saying that Donald Sterling is not allowed to say what he thinks, privately, in his own home-- without being subject to sanction? Who here has not had thoughts or made statements of one sort or another, that many other people might find objectionable? Would you really want any or all of your personal conversations to be subject for review, to decide whether your personal property rights and finances could be infringed or reduced? If you criticize your boss or your employer in the privacy of your home, should you be able to be fired or fined for doing so (assume for argument's sake that you are not an "at-will" employee)?

Sterling is not being sanctioned for throwaway thoughts, perhaps expressed while drunk. He is being sanctioned for throwaway thoughts, perhaps expressed while drunk, that are backed up by decades (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729) of racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling#Controversies), despicable behavior (http://www.thenation.com/blog/179551/donald-sterling-slumlord-billionaire) across multiple businesses. Lots of people make a slip of the lip, and are allowed to apologize. The problem here was that everyone understood that Sterling meant every word he said. His record is far too deep and wide on this issue for any other conclusion. This incident was the trigger, but the barrel had been accumulating gunpowder for quite some time.

Also, Stiviano was purportedly employed as Sterling's "archivist (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/v-stiviano-donald-sterling-girlfriend-maria-perez.html?mid=google)" and thus was recording him regularly with his knowledge and consent. Who knows if that's true, but it's her story at least.

[CALVET]

Sterling is not being sanctioned for throwaway thoughts, perhaps expressed while drunk. He is being sanctioned for throwaway thoughts, perhaps expressed while drunk, that are backed up by decades (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729) of racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling#Controversies), despicable behavior (http://www.thenation.com/blog/179551/donald-sterling-slumlord-billionaire) across multiple businesses. Lots of people make a slip of the lip, and are allowed to apologize. The problem here was that everyone understood that Sterling meant every word he said. His record is far too deep and wide on this issue for any other conclusion. This incident was the trigger, but the barrel had been accumulating gunpowder for quite some time.

Also, Stiviano was purportedly employed as Sterling's "archivist (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/v-stiviano-donald-sterling-girlfriend-maria-perez.html?mid=google)" and thus was recording him regularly with his knowledge and consent. Who knows if that's true, but it's her story at least.

Was he ever warned by the league for earlier behavior and was that considered in today's decision?

[Des Esseintes]

Today simply replaced one kind of intolerance for another. We will undoubted see application of this extended well beyond sports because so many are defending it.

Let's see. We replaced racist intolerance with intolerance of bigotry. America loses in that exchange, how exactly?

And can we PLEASE wait until someone even SUGGESTS an application of the Sterling judgment on another target? Some people are acting as if a dangerous precedent has been set, and yet this controversy has only demonstrated to me how *hard* it is to punish a despicable personality when he has hundreds of millions and a seat of power. Sterling behaves like a villain for years and years, and only when it becomes the largest story in America are we capable of seeing some change. I really wouldn't worry, CALVET. Old, evil racists will continue to be hard to budge for the forseeable future.

[Des Esseintes]

Was he ever warned by the league for earlier behavior and was that considered in today's decision?

Yeah, a grown man needed a written warning to stop discriminating against people based on the color of their skin. If you don't give him a warning, how will he know something is wrong, amiright?

[Duvall]

Whip count - 25 owners backing Silver? (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/On-The-Ground/2014/04/NBA-Owners-React-on-Twitter.aspx)

[CALVET]

Yeah, a grown man needed a written warning to stop discriminating against people based on the color of their skin. If you don't give him a warning, how will he know something is wrong, amiright?

We both know that wasn't my point, Des. if you make a claim that the league should've taken action based on prior behavior then it make sense if it were documented.

[FerryFor50]

If you are on the NBA mailing list, the commish sent this out:


Dear Fans,

This afternoon I announced that, following the completion of a thorough investigation into an audio recording obtained by TMZ, I banned Donald Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers or the NBA, effective immediately. Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices, be present at any Clippers office or facility, or participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team. I also fined Mr. Sterling $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed under the NBA Constitution. These funds will be donated to charitable organizations dedicated to anti-discrimination and tolerance efforts that will be jointly selected by the NBA and its Players Association.

The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and hurtful. I am extremely proud of this great league's diverse, respectful and inclusive culture, and we will not allow one individual's intolerant views to define us. Let me be clear: Mr. Sterling's views have no place in the NBA.

This has been a painful episode for all members of the NBA family. I very much appreciate your understanding during this process. I also want to express my thanks and admiration to Coach Doc Rivers, Chris Paul, and the entire Clippers organization for their professionalism throughout this matter, and to Chris and Mayor Kevin Johnson for their leadership and partnership on behalf of the Players Association.

And now I am eager to turn the spotlight back where it belongs: on the game we all love and on these thrilling playoffs, which have been some of the most exciting basketball I've seen in my 22 years with the league. I hope you enjoy the rest of the playoffs and The Finals.

[CALVET]

Let's see. We replaced racist intolerance with intolerance of bigotry. America loses in that exchange, how exactly?

And can we PLEASE wait until someone even SUGGESTS an application of the Sterling judgment on another target? Some people are acting as if a dangerous precedent has been set, and yet this controversy has only demonstrated to me how *hard* it is to punish a despicable personality when he has hundreds of millions and a seat of power. Sterling behaves like a villain for years and years, and only when it becomes the largest story in America are we capable of seeing some change. I really wouldn't worry, CALVET. Old, evil racists will continue to be hard to budge for the forseeable future.

Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth. Have you read any of my prior posts? If not, let me reiterate. My entire objection is using legal policy to discipline and financially strip someone based on a secretly taped conversation. And yes, a dangerous precedent has been set because you feel the need for laws to "punish" someone because of his thoughts...not his actions with the team. If you don't understand the difference then you don't realize that thought control would be doing exactly the same as people did decades ago that you claim to detest. You want to punish Sterling and others like him then exercise your rights like you're doing here.

If you're gonna jump my case, at least don't mischaracterize what I said.

[Mudge]

Today simply replaced one kind of intolerance for another. We will undoubted see application of this extended well beyond sports because so many are defending it.

Indeed, we already do-- on campuses across America, on a regular recurring basis.

[Des Esseintes]

We both know that wasn't my point, Des. if you make a claim that the league should've taken action based on prior behavior then it make sense if it were documented.

I'm not sure I follow. Sterling's racist history is extremely well-documented. The paper trail is there, on the public record. If the NBA under David Stern failed to send Sterling letters of reprimand in the past, that should prevent Adam Silver from acting today? That sounds like an argument for continuing to let an injustice stand just because it has gone unaddressed until now. Primo Levi said, "If not now, when?" and I think on this matter that question is apt.

[FerryFor50]

Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth. Have you read any of my prior posts? If not, let me reiterate. My entire objection is using legal policy to discipline and financially strip someone based on a secretly taped conversation. And yes, a dangerous precedent has been set because you feel the need for laws to "punish" someone because of his thoughts...not his actions with the team. If you don't understand the difference then you don't realize that thought control would be doing exactly the same as people did decades ago that you claim to detest. You want to punish Sterling and others like him then exercise your rights like you're doing here.

If you're gonna jump my case, at least don't mischaracterize what I said.


Legal policy? Like, the contract every owner signs to own a team in the NBA?

There was no call for laws, though laws do exist against hate speech and racial discrimination, but that is besides the point. What Adam Silver and the NBA did was a business move, regardless of how any of them felt about the comments.

[FerryFor50]

I'm not sure I follow. Sterling's racist history is extremely well-documented. The paper trail is there, on the public record. If the NBA under David Stern failed to send Sterling letters of reprimand in the past, that should prevent Adam Silver from acting today? That sounds like an argument for continuing to let an injustice stand just because it has gone unaddressed until now. Primo Levi said, "If not now, when?" and I think on this matter that question is apt.

As others have said, the NBA really could not act at that time, for fear of backlash. And this issue was acted on likely for the fact that they finally had a business reason to act. The NBA could say that they are booting Sterling for hurting the brand, but would have a harder time saying they were booting him for being a racist.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth. Have you read any of my prior posts? If not, let me reiterate. My entire objection is using legal policy to discipline and financially strip someone based on a secretly taped conversation. And yes, a dangerous precedent has been set because you feel the need for laws to "punish" someone because of his thoughts...not his actions with the team. If you don't understand the difference then you don't realize that thought control would be doing exactly the same as people did decades ago that you claim to detest. You want to punish Sterling and others like him then exercise your rights like you're doing here.

If you're gonna jump my case, at least don't mischaracterize what I said.

According to this TMZ account Sterling wanted to be taped because he sometimes forgot what he said and needed to be reminded.
And she has 100 hours of tapes.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/28/5660950/donald-sterling-girlfriend-recordings

So evidently he knew he was being taped.

SoCal

[Mudge]

Let's see. We replaced racist intolerance with intolerance of bigotry. America loses in that exchange, how exactly?

And can we PLEASE wait until someone even SUGGESTS an application of the Sterling judgment on another target? Some people are acting as if a dangerous precedent has been set, and yet this controversy has only demonstrated to me how *hard* it is to punish a despicable personality when he has hundreds of millions and a seat of power. Sterling behaves like a villain for years and years, and only when it becomes the largest story in America are we capable of seeing some change. I really wouldn't worry, CALVET. Old, evil racists will continue to be hard to budge for the forseeable future.

Well, you need wait no longer-- Jason Whitlock has already spelled it out for you, in his current piece on ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10857268/removing-donald-sterling-la-clippers-owner-fix-our-culture

And (as I asked about in my earlier post) Jason points out the innumerable people (both old, rich, powerful, white guys and young, wealthy black guys) have various private thoughts and conversations (not all necessarily of a racial/racist nature) that they would be mortified to have released in the public domain-- and many of which would result in some kind of sanction(s) akin to what Sterling is now facing-- as Whitlock points out, once you unleash mob rule, don't expect it to stop outside your front door...

[FerryFor50]

Well, you need wait no longer-- Jason Whitlock has already spelled it out for you, in his current piece on ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10857268/removing-donald-sterling-la-clippers-owner-fix-our-culture

And (as I asked about in my earlier post) Jason points out the innumerable people (both old, rich, powerful, white guys and young, wealthy black guys) have various private thoughts and conversations (not all necessarily of a racial/racist nature) that they would be mortified to have released in the public domain-- and many of which would result in some kind of sanction(s) akin to what Sterling is now facing-- as Whitlock points out, once you unleash mob rule, don't expect it to stop outside your front door...

Way I see it, there are two options.

1) Don't say deplorable things you might be mortified about if they ever got out.

2) Keep better, more trustworthy company.

Actually, might as well combine the two, especially if you're worth a lot of money.

[Duvall]

Way I see it, there are two options.

1) Don't say deplorable things you might be mortified about if they ever got out.

2) Keep better, more trustworthy company.

Actually, might as well combine the two, especially if you're worth a lot of money.

3) Don't have a track record that makes your business partners realize that you are a massive liability as soon as your deplorable statements become widely heard.

[Reisen]

Again, the situation with Sterling is not about just any old "skeletons." And he didn't "just" use a racial slur one time (or even many times). He espoused a set of views that are uniquely toxic and antithetical to the modern NBA, and to 21st Century America. The stuff he said made him seem like an apartheid-era owner of a majority black soccer team in South Africa. It was outrageous. After all, this is the NBA, where the owners are mostly white and the players are mostly black. It hits home. It resonates. And when you layer it on top of his history, and we begin to learn that he has been accused in the past of actually *acting* on these ideas and treating Elgin Baylor and Danny Manning and Magic Johnson and others with this sort of vile, racist disrespect, and you see the lawsuits for housing discrimination, and you layer it on top of the fact that the guy has been a deadbeat owner for 30 years -- now you get a set of conditions where 3/4 of the NBA owners are willing (probably -- we'll see) to cut him loose.

So, just to be clear, I was responding to (and quoted) Des Esseintes' question:


Further, I think we can go easy on the "slippery slope" fears generally. Does anyone think this situation is going to lead to any other owners being ousted in American sports? Sterling was a unique situation, with a unique history of racial bigotry both in his athletic dealings and real estate empire. If something similar happens within the next decade in any of the Big Four sports, I will be amazed.

To be fair, while Schott finally sold the team in 1999, the incident that led to her last ban was in 1996, so 18 years ago. But if we've had two owners banned in 18 years, it seems not out of the realm of possibility that a third could be banned in the next 10.

My point was not that what Sterling did was "an old skeleton in his closet". I think that's obvious, given this is a current event. Nor was I saying what he did was ok. But I was arguing that if the public can get Paula Deen or Brendan Eich fired for something they did or said in the past, the same thing could happen to another NBA or MLB owner.

Both Michael Richards and Mel Gibson were in their mid-50's when very similar stories to this came out. While I agree it's more likely to happen to older people like Sterling or Schott, I don't think seniors have a monopoly on getting caught voicing unpopular views. Per Des Esseintes' post, I'm not sure why actors would be more likely than owners of a sports franchise to air such opinions (publicly or privately). Generally less intelligent? Under more stress? More entitled? I don't know... Maybe I buy the argument that they're more likely to get caught (more TMZ cameras), but this episode shows TMZ will pay just as much for an NBA owner airing racist views as for a Hollywood A-lister airing anti-Semitic views.

Which leads me back to my point you quoted: "I think it is a near certainty that multiple other owners in the big four sports have skeletons in their closet capable of generating this level of outrage."

While I'd like to agree with you that racism (& general prejudice against all differences between humans) will simply die a slow death, I'm not so sure. We know that many sports locker rooms are still openly hostile to homosexuals. Do we assume the ownership & staff are any different? Certainly not if you believe Chris Kluwe.

Would anyone be the least bit surprised if TMZ obtained a tape tomorrow of another big 4 owner making blatantly homophobic comments? What happens if it's an NBA owner? Do you warn him? Do you send the message that it's ok to be prejudiced against a minority group, just as long as it's not one that makes up a large percentage of your fanbase and employees? What if sponsors start pulling out?

I don't have great answers to these questions. Nor am I saying Silver did the wrong thing; rather, I think he did the right thing. But I do believe there is a slippery slope argument here that comes with the territory of Silver's actions.

[Mudge]

I'm not sure I follow. Sterling's racist history is extremely well-documented. The paper trail is there, on the public record. If the NBA under David Stern failed to send Sterling letters of reprimand in the past, that should prevent Adam Silver from acting today? That sounds like an argument for continuing to let an injustice stand just because it has gone unaddressed until now. Primo Levi said, "If not now, when?" and I think on this matter that question is apt.

It is so well documented that the local Southern California chapter of the NAACP was about to give Sterling a lifetime achievement award next month. The cases (involving his real estate rentals) in which he paid fines did not involve any convictions-- in each case, he/his business apparently agreed to settle, while admitting no wrong-doing-- in one case, as a means of reducing his overall costs, because the legal bills were bigger than the fines-- his lawyers were able to contend that none of the cases of racial discrimination were ever actually proven. As for the Elgin Baylor case, I believe Baylor lost that suit... I am not saying Sterling isn't a bigot or a racist-- I'm saying that this is not the undisputed, estabilished fact that you are claiming it is.

Moreover, if the NBA has never taken issue with any of these previous incidents to which you refer, they would definitely be on thin ice legally to suddenly refer to those earlier incidents as the reason for this current sanction. It is a well-established tenet of employment litigation that if you want to punish someone for their past deeds, you can't suddenly bring up a string of alleged incidents from years ago, and claim that those events are the basis of the current punishment-- you need to have established a documented trail of calling out the past events at the time of their occurrence-- and making it clear that those activities/events were unacceptable (kind of like MLB has done with Alex Rodriguez)... in sum, I do not think this punishment for Sterling by Silver is based off of any other conduct than that which is contained in the recorded phone call played on TMZ.

P.S.- Does anyone else find it humorous (or at least ironic) that Hulk Hogan's original wrestling nom de guerre was "Sterling Silver"?

[WakeDevil]

Trivialize much? As Monmouth mentions above, the Sterling affair goes to the very heart of the NBA. The ecstatic response (http://nba.si.com/2014/04/29/donald-sterling-adam-silver-nba-reaction-magic-johnson-mark-cuban/?eref=sihp) from a host of the most respected current and former players speaks to the vital importance of a robust response. The Putin jersey nobody cares about. Lots of unpleasant people have received free t-shirts over the years. To compare that to having a man with Sterling's racist history and behaviors in control of a franchise in America's most black-identified sports league is, I'm sorry, profoundly insulting.

Sorry, sir, but I care about honoring a man who has set up a gangster government. I won't carry it further because this is not a politics board. Maybe you can meet me at the Brickyard.

[Mudge]

Sterling is not being sanctioned for throwaway thoughts, perhaps expressed while drunk. He is being sanctioned for throwaway thoughts, perhaps expressed while drunk, that are backed up by decades (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729) of racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling#Controversies), despicable behavior (http://www.thenation.com/blog/179551/donald-sterling-slumlord-billionaire) across multiple businesses. Lots of people make a slip of the lip, and are allowed to apologize. The problem here was that everyone understood that Sterling meant every word he said. His record is far too deep and wide on this issue for any other conclusion. This incident was the trigger, but the barrel had been accumulating gunpowder for quite some time.

Also, Stiviano was purportedly employed as Sterling's "archivist (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/v-stiviano-donald-sterling-girlfriend-maria-perez.html?mid=google)" and thus was recording him regularly with his knowledge and consent. Who knows if that's true, but it's her story at least.

I absolutely do not believe that Adam Silver is punishing Sterling in this situation based on anything other than the comments that were recorded in the TMZ posting... none of Sterling's alleged earlier misdeeds are being used to sanction Sterling now-- if they were, the NBA would have needed to make a point of calling out those earlier actions and labeling them as unacceptable in some contemporaneous time frame-- that was never done, to my knowledge... it is quite likely that David Stern knew exactly what Donald Sterling is/was like-- but (apparently) nothing Sterling ever did then rose to the level of inducing any sanction by the NBA league or Commissioner.

[Des Esseintes]

Well, you need wait no longer-- Jason Whitlock has already spelled it out for you, in his current piece on ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10857268/removing-donald-sterling-la-clippers-owner-fix-our-culture

And (as I asked about in my earlier post) Jason points out the innumerable people (both old, rich, powerful, white guys and young, wealthy black guys) have various private thoughts and conversations (not all necessarily of a racial/racist nature) that they would be mortified to have released in the public domain-- and many of which would result in some kind of sanction(s) akin to what Sterling is now facing-- as Whitlock points out, once you unleash mob rule, don't expect it to stop outside your front door...

I've been reading Whitlock for twenty years now, since he was a rising columnist with the KC Star. He lost his fastball a long time ago (and had an overrated fastball to begin with). This column spells out nothing, other than his own penchant for writing contrarian pieces that troll for page hits. He and others are acting as though suddenly we are in a brave new world where private mistakes can get you publicly shamed, and it's somehow the fault of people who wish someone other than Donald Sterling was running the Los Angeles Clippers. No. That has been happening for quite some time. Further, it's all well and good to stand upon Olympian heights and weep about this rise of mob rule. But, again, can we at least *watch* the mob and see if it does anything else first? Because from where I'm sitting, the mob sure just wants to disperse. Donald Sterling was a uniquely horrible owner. There are many, many venal, unpleasant men running American franchises, but few of them have personal convictions utterly at odds with treating their own work force with something resembling dignity. This vengeance isn't going to come for the guys who commit infidelity. It's not going to come for the guys who casually deploy a gay or chauvinistic slur. It has been reserved for deposing a man who has built his career around treating black people as inferior when he just so happens to sit astride one of the most important institutions of black culture in America.

Finally, can we leave off the "mob" garbage? Nobody burned down Donald Sterling's house. Nobody is saying Donald Sterling should get anything other than top market value for his franchise. Nobody is illegally imprisoning Donald Sterling. The whole point of a mob is that it acts in an extra-legal capacity. So, please tell me, WHAT has been illegal, either about the popular response to Sterling's horridness or Silver's announcement? It all looks awfully within the bounds of American law to me.

[Duvall]

I absolutely do not believe that Adam Silver is punishing Sterling in this situation based on anything other than the comments that were recorded in the TMZ posting... none of Sterling's alleged earlier misdeeds are being used to sanction Sterling now-- if they were, the NBA would have needed to make a point of calling out those earlier actions and labeling them as unacceptable in some contemporaneous time frame-- that was never done, to my knowledge...

Why? Is there some sort of statute of limitations boundary on the Commissioner's authority under Article 24(l) of the NBA Constitution? I don't see one.

[Mudge]

I've been reading Whitlock for twenty years now, since he was a rising columnist with the KC Star. He lost his fastball a long time ago (and had an overrated fastball to begin with). This column spells out nothing, other than his own penchant for writing contrarian pieces that troll for page hits. He and others are acting as though suddenly we are in a brave new world where private mistakes can get you publicly shamed, and it's somehow the fault of people who wish someone other than Donald Sterling was running the Los Angeles Clippers. No. That has been happening for quite some time. Further, it's all well and good to stand upon Olympian heights and weep about this rise of mob rule. But, again, can we at least *watch* the mob and see if it does anything else first? Because from where I'm sitting, the mob sure just wants to disperse. Donald Sterling was a uniquely horrible owner. There are many, many venal, unpleasant men running American franchises, but few of them have personal convictions utterly at odds with treating their own work force with something resembling dignity. This vengeance isn't going to come for the guys who commit infidelity. It's not going to come for the guys who casually deploy a gay or chauvinistic slur. It has been reserved for deposing a man who has built his career around treating black people as inferior when he just so happens to sit astride one of the most important institutions of black culture in America.

Finally, can we leave off the "mob" garbage? Nobody burned down Donald Sterling's house. Nobody is saying Donald Sterling should get anything other than top market value for his franchise. Nobody is illegally imprisoning Donald Sterling. The whole point of a mob is that it acts in an extra-legal capacity. So, please tell me, WHAT has been illegal, either about the popular response to Sterling's horridness or Silver's announcement? It all looks awfully within the bounds of American law to me.

So far, no one has burned down Sterling's house-- but if one of the possible remedies being suggested-- the league votes to contract the (otherwise clearly viable and profitable) Clippers franchise out of existence, in order to get rid of Sterling, without compensating him at fair market value, then yes, you have effectively "burned down" Sterling's Clipper house... that hasn't happened yet, but it is being discussed. This leaves aside whether Sterling's private conversation was legally recorded and disseminated. I also don't think compelling Sterling to sell, even at market price, because we/someone disapprove(s) of what he has said privately, is a good precedent that we want to set-- it seems like he should still, however irrational he may seem, have the right to retain his property (the team, not the players) and keep or sell it, as he sees fit, if he has committed no public violation of the league's rules.

For me, you are simply arguing about the degree to which rough justice is being (or is likely to be) meted out in this and future instances... you contend that no one who is not doing anything as egregious as (you view) Sterling's actions need fear that they will be similarly punished for some lesser transgression in the future-- pardon me if I take cold comfort in your assurances. I'd rather see more ironclad guarantees that property rights (one of the fundamental "rules of law" in our society, which don't tend to get respected in a lot of other countries around the world) will continue to be observed here in the future... I'd also like to see a bit more of the spirit (here) that went into that famous Voltaire quote about disapproving of something that someone said, while defending to the death their right to say it.

And maybe you don't think much of Whitlock's analogies-- I don't necessarily think that all of his arguments are valid (e.g.- let him look to Africa to find examples of the wonderful government that arises from black majority countries), but I do think his counter-examples (of athletes and "playas" with similar indiscreet behavior) hold water, and spelled out plenty, when it comes to envisioning where this could go-- you already have black NFL players angrily concerned that they are going be fined or suspended for using a certain word next season-- this is just the beginning.

[Mudge]

Why? Is there some sort of statute of limitations boundary on the Commissioner's authority under Article 24(l) of the NBA Constitution? I don't see one.

It's common sense-- if the NBA felt that something rose to the level of censure, then Stern would have said/done something about it then... you don't wait 20 years, and then say-- hey, wait, you can't do that-- and because of that from 20 years ago, plus this, we're gonna chop your head off.

[Duvall]

So far, no one has burned down Sterling's house-- but if one of the possible remedies being suggested-- the league votes to contract the (otherwise clearly viable and profitable) Clippers franchise out of existence, in order to get rid of Sterling, without compensating him at fair market value, then yes, you have effectively "burned down" Sterling's Clipper house... that hasn't happened yet, but it is being discussed.

Discussed by whom? Who is proposing doing this, and how would they carry this out?


For me, you are simply arguing about the degree to which rough justice is being (or is likely to be) meted out in this and future instances... you contend that no one who is not doing anything as egregious as (you view) Sterling's actions need fear that they will be similarly punished for some lesser transgression in the future-- pardon me if I take cold comfort in your assurances. I'd rather see more ironclad guarantees that property rights (one of the fundamental "rules of law" in our society, which don't tend to get respected in a lot of other countries around the world) will continue to be observed here in the future...

What about the property rights of the other 29 NBA owners? Why can't they insist the terms of their agreement with Sterling be enforced?

[bob blue devil]

According to this TMZ account Sterling wanted to be taped because he sometimes forgot what he said and needed to be reminded.
And she has 100 hours of tapes.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/28/5660950/donald-sterling-girlfriend-recordings

So evidently he knew he was being taped.

SoCal

This would be funny if it weren't potentially sad. Not saying this is applicable here, but should someone losing their faculties be permitted to control an NBA franchise?

[uh_no]

should someone losing their faculties be permitted to control an NBA franchise?

why not? such people control the US government :P

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

"the true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching." i don't buy the argument that we should judge others by the public persona they seek to project, and ignore the dirt they'd rather have private. the truth is what it is.

as des esseintes points out, nba owner is a privileged position. to augment that point, it is a role of leadership where the person is a steward of community interest. i think someone in that role should be held to the standards of their community. they do not deserve to have their privileged role be protected by the fullest safeguards of the law - those safeguards are in place to protect liberties, not privileges.

Thank you for your point. While Sterling has a constitutional right to say hateful and racist things, he has no constitutional right to own an NBA franchise. What do you think McDonald's would do if one of its franchisees put up a sign on the store that he hated minorities? He would be stripped of the franchise in a heartbeat. Now if the old bigot owns his own business with no other affiliation as long as he violates no laws he can believe and think anything he wants. There is no slippery slope here, this becomes solely a business decision for the NBA. A lot of people on this board and elsewhere seem to think his girlfriend betrayed his confidence, but in no state in this country is the testimony of a girl friend privileged in a court of law. And in many states a person can record any conversation they want as long as that person is a party to the conversation, so that argument may be valid in California, but many other state legislatures would disagree. Finally, the old bigot will be well paid for his team when he is forced out. I am sure he may well sue the NBA but I am sure any jury in Los Angeles county or anywhere else in the country will be more than happy to rule for the NBA. Good job to our Duke Grad and Commissioner.

[cato]

So far, no one has burned down Sterling's house-- but if one of the possible remedies being suggested-- the league votes to contract the (otherwise clearly viable and profitable) Clippers franchise out of existence, in order to get rid of Sterling, without compensating him at fair market value, then yes, you have effectively "burned down" Sterling's Clipper house... that hasn't happened yet, but it is being discussed. This leaves aside whether Sterling's private conversation was legally recorded and disseminated. I also don't think compelling Sterling to sell, even at market price, because we/someone disapprove(s) of what he has said privately, is a good precedent that we want to set-- it seems like he should still, however irrational he may seem, have the right to retain his property (the team, not the players) and keep or sell it, as he sees fit, if he has committed no public violation of the league's rules.


Do you realize how exceedingly common it is for owners of closely held enterprises to be forced to sell (or simply lose) their equity in the enterprise? His "property" is merely a set of rights, which have strings attached. Anger enough string holders, and those strings will be pulled.

The other owners are not the government. They cannot just swoop in and take Sterling's property. All they can do is enforce terms that Sterling freely agreed to.

[Henderson]

Donald Sterling better be very careful in his property management business going forward. If he continues his antics of the past, plaintiffs' lawyers are going to be much less reluctant to take him on now. He's quickly gone from the "scary powerful guy with deep pockets and a vengeful nature whom you don't want to cross" to the "rich guy with a target on his chest and no sympathy from jurors."

No more charity events with Donald as the grand benefactor.

No more big parties with paid-for hired celebrities and people who want to be seen in LA.

No more TV time and glad-handing at the games.

Hell of a hole he's dug for himself at the age of 81.

But there is some good that comes of all this (aside from getting rid of Donald Sterling): Sports owners should now be chastened into not acting like feudal lords. People will be watching.

[wilson]

I wonder if this will soon bring about a rebranding of the Clippers. The franchise name has long been associated with mediocrity and mismanagement (it's the all-time losingest franchise in the four major North American sports), and now it's also associated with a slimy bigot. I wouldn't be surprised if the next owner chooses to change the team's identity so as to set in motion a break with its history. At the very least, it seems a good time to move beyond the generic logo and iconography (the plain basketball motif is oh-so appropriate for a franchise that's always been operated so parsimoniously).
Why, oh why, have they not been rolling with a logo more like this?
4098

[johnb]

We do have NBA owners who are clearly homophobic (Orlando Magic), owners who helped directly cause the subprime mess (Cleveland Cavaliers), and an owner who spent four nights in a French jail for importing 8 prostitutes for him and a few friends while they hung out for a few days at a resort (NJ Nets). I'd imagine that if tape recordings were available for all they have said over the past decade, we'd be in the midst of a feeding frenzy. http://massappeal.com/shady-nba-owners-donald-sterling-is-just-one-of-many/

Another angle for the punishment is not just that the words reflect abhorrent beliefs but that society (i.e., people) are tired of having to deal with the very tiny percentage of people who now control most of the country's (and world's) wealth. As has lately become apparent, the hottest book on amazon these days is a French econ textbook, Capital in the 21st Century. It spells out how the rich--like Sterling--have gotten richer while everyone else has muddled along. That can be seen as reflecting genius or effort, but when non-rich people meet the actual people who have become very rich (like Sterling), they are often unimpressed. And so as is true for all idealized people and subgroups, there's a tendency to then want to knock the people off the pedestal. And they can often do so because these very rich folks generally do have some outsized skeletons. As Balzac said, "behind every great fortune lies a great crime." Are the rich and famous more likely to say and do reprehensible things? I dunno, but in this age of instant photos and recordings, it's going to be increasingly tough to be relaxed and honest without consequences. As an ad for Manhattan Mini Storage says, "Bet the French aristocracy didn't see it coming, either."

[JasonEvans]

I'm no mod, but before folks start getting into trouble by talking about Mr. Sterling's privacy rights again, it might be wise to review post #130 above.

The mod team noticed some posts and posters who went over the line (despite a stern warning) and have taken appropriate action.

-Jason

[wilson]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has weighed in with an interesting take on the situation, essentially lambasting both sides.
http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has weighed in with an interesting take on the situation, essentially lambasting both sides.
http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777

Always interesting to hear his insights. He's a very intelligent man and an excellent writer.

[SoCalDukeFan]

We do have NBA owners who are clearly homophobic (Orlando Magic), owners who helped directly cause the subprime mess (Cleveland Cavaliers), and an owner who spent four nights in a French jail for importing 8 prostitutes for him and a few friends while they hung out for a few days at a resort (NJ Nets). I'd imagine that if tape recordings were available for all they have said over the past decade, we'd be in the midst of a feeding frenzy. http://massappeal.com/shady-nba-owners-donald-sterling-is-just-one-of-many/

Another angle for the punishment is not just that the words reflect abhorrent beliefs but that society (i.e., people) are tired of having to deal with the very tiny percentage of people who now control most of the country's (and world's) wealth. As has lately become apparent, the hottest book on amazon these days is a French econ textbook, Capital in the 21st Century. It spells out how the rich--like Sterling--have gotten richer while everyone else has muddled along. That can be seen as reflecting genius or effort, but when non-rich people meet the actual people who have become very rich (like Sterling), they are often unimpressed. And so as is true for all idealized people and subgroups, there's a tendency to then want to knock the people off the pedestal. And they can often do so because these very rich folks generally do have some outsized skeletons. As Balzac said, "behind every great fortune lies a great crime." Are the rich and famous more likely to say and do reprehensible things? I dunno, but in this age of instant photos and recordings, it's going to be increasingly tough to be relaxed and honest without consequences. As an ad for Manhattan Mini Storage says, "Bet the French aristocracy didn't see it coming, either."

There are probably some gay NBA players and also a few that are homophobic. There are also probably some NBA players who have spent some time with prostitutes. I don't think the subprime mess is discussed much in NBA locker rooms. However a very high percentage of NBA players are black. Some of the coaches are black. It is just not acceptable to them to have an owner with Sterling's mentality. And I think most or all of the white players fully appreciate the feeling of their black teammates.

If this gal posted a picture with say Elton John and Sterling told her not to hang out with gays, I am not sure what the NBA player reaction would have been but I doubt if it would have been this strong.

SoCal