Clippers Owner Banned for Life

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
Just imagine if everyone that heard this conversation, just laughed, called him an idiot and then moved on and got on with their lives.

Just imagine!

Just imagine....he'd get to go on making millions off of people he was trying to keep down....just imagine!

"keep down?"

what's the ave salary on the clippers team?
is it lower than other teams?

anyone bother to ask any of the team what they think of sterling?
do they even know him? have they been abused?

i think the commission is way out of line.
let everyone quit on him if they want.

it's not a crime to say stupid stuff.

1)The league has rules in place to keep scumbags like his from being able to pay their players less.
2)He has said, flat out, that he would prefer a team of poor black players.
3)The players were going to boycott. That says enough.
4)No one is charging him with a crime.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

They don't need to pay him to leave. He violated the ethics clause of his contract, they can and did fine him, banned him and are making him sell the team. It's over.

They haven't actually forced him to sell, yet.

The legal beagles are currently trying to figure out if they are actually allowed to do that before the NBA makes an official forced sale statement.

They are absolutely allowed. All they need is a 3/4 vote from the other owners. Ill be surprised if it isnt unanimous.

a reply to: SM2

Allright then. Should we then demand they force the racist Jay-Z sell the Nets?

JayZ doesnt own any part of the Nets anymore.

Nice try though.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: phinubian

a reply to: DarthOej

You two guys nailed it and summed it up perfectly. No doubt these are the two best posts in this thread. After reading both, I really can't see why this is even debatable any more.

@DarthOej: lol at that Charles Barkley deflection because that's exactly what that was. Capital fail in that regard.

The reason it is still debatable for some is cognitive dissonance. They absolutely have to keep debating and trying to downplay it because they need some way to reconcile their views with reality. Their warped version of reality that is.

originally posted by: [post=17865168]captaintyinknots

They are absolutely allowed. All they need is a 3/4 vote from the other owners. Ill be surprised if it isnt unanimous.

A point that a local sports radio station brought up is that perhaps other owners have skeletons in their closet as well. What would their votes be if Sterling has dirt on them?

It'll make for great television :p

a reply to: DarthOej

a reply to: captaintyinknots

2)He has said, flat out, that he would prefer a team of poor black players.
3)The players were going to boycott. That says enough.

The #2 reason is pretty much why I think #3 was just lip service. These players all stand up and claim they're outraged, etc. Where were there morals when they signed their lucrative contracts to play for the Clippers, knowing full well that Donald Sterling was racist? It wasn't a secret. Elgin Baylor sued him in 2009 for wrongful termination. Other things have happened and not a single one of the players, coaches, executives ever stood on their morals then.

They only said anything about it once it become such very public knowledge. They knew before. Doc Rivers said he wasn't surprised when he heard about it. If he really wanted to make a stand, instead of accepting a lucrative contract from a known racist, maybe he would have released a statement saying he was offered the job but decided to decline because the team is owned by a racist.

That didn't happen because his paycheck is more important to him than his morals. Now they're all standing up like they are outraged, but they knew about it before. Where was the outrage when you were signing the contract? That's right, they didn't want to sign somewhere else for less because it's all about the money.

Where was Chris Paul's outrage as he was opting in for the final year of his contract, thereby agreeing to play for the team for two more seasons? Sterling was racist back then just as he is now, and it was no secret then either. Basically they're outraged now due to PR reasons, because the people are outraged (as well they should be).

I still contend people should be just as outraged that someone like Jason Kidd is still part of the league with his criminal history. Of course, David Stern was still the head of the NBA at the time he got that DUI and perhaps Silver would have handled it differently.

originally posted by: DarthOej

originally posted by: [post=17865168]captaintyinknots

They are absolutely allowed. All they need is a 3/4 vote from the other owners. Ill be surprised if it isnt unanimous.

A point that a local sports radio station brought up is that perhaps other owners have skeletons in their closet as well. What would their votes be if Sterling has dirt on them?

It wont matter. Every billionaire has skeleton. Sterling has no credit with the public at this point.

it would be far worse for any owner to vote NOT to remove him, and then have that vote leaked, as he would immediately be grouped with Sterling.

a reply to: Pimpish

There were prepared to boycott last nights game. Its not just lip service.
sports.yahoo.com...

Obviously, money has something to do with why they still played for him. But there is also the fact that he bought his way into an NAACP award as an attempt to restore his image.

On top of all of that, knowing that someone is racist, and hearing from their own mouth, are two very different things.

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: jrod
There is no room for closet or two-faced racists in America in power positions, it's just bad for everyone on both sides, especially the kids.

Unless your black.

...and there's the good 'ol "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!"

a reply to: captaintyinknots

Right, they were prepared to boycott...sure. That's just lip service in my opinion. It wouldn't have happened. It's easy to say now after the fact when they now know it won't come to that.

Why weren't they publicly stating that they would boycott BEFORE the decision, if it didn't turn out how they wanted? You know why? Because then if it didn't turn out the way they had wanted, they would have had to boycott and that was never going to happen.

a reply to: tsingtao
While she may have nothing, but consider this, unless she decides to be homeless, in such a lawsuit, she would be followed, hounded and lose anything that she would gain, unless she is able to either paw off the judgment or gets a judge to reverse the decision. Ultimately, it will go bad for her, if he loses the team, due to her actions.

So while she may think she is protected, ultimately she is going to lose big time in the long run, and this will haunt her for a very long time. While there are those who will be believe he is wrong, but her actions also mark her as well.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
They are absolutely allowed. All they need is a 3/4 vote from the other owners. Ill be surprised if it isnt unanimous.

How about you back that up with some evidence?

If it was as easy as you have claimed, it would be done already. But, it isn't. And, it isn't for good reason. Not only is there no direct clause for this in the NBA constitution (the sanctity of the league is already protected by Sterling's life ban), the last thing the NBA needs is this going to a real court and being stuck in litigation for the next decade. Neither the league, nor Sterling, will be able to move the team until that litigation is complete if that comes to pass.

Edit to add:

In an article for Sports Illustrated, U.S. attorney Michael McCann wrote, "Article 13 lists a series of enumerated wrongs, some of which are specific but none of which seem directly relevant to an owner whose racism expressed in a private conversation sparks national outrage."

Trying to force a sale on such an ethical basis is an interpretation of the constitution that might not stand up in a court of law, says Glickman.

a reply to: peck420

The thing is... He is a Jewish lawyer worth $1.9B. He says they are not for sale. Even though he'll make an insane profit, he will hang on until he dies just on principle. I think things like this are being taken too far. Whose day to day lives are affected by his actions? Certainly not mine. He may consider himself a decent lawyer, but he's lost some pretty damning cases for himself. He is also generally regarded as the worst owner in pro sports of all leagues. That said, they will have to pry the team from his cold, dead clutches. He'll be an absentee owner and nobody will care.

Here's an article from cbs sports asserting his position via bad reporting.

Sterling: "Team is not for sale"

When does it quit? Court filings and motion after motion will be filed to make it so much of a pain in the butt to actually account for trying to get rid of the guy. I just find it weird that I'm defending an inept billionaire? Shame on me.

This story was among a couple covered in my last days of a journalism course. This was in the context of ethics and legal standards for reporters. An interesting question was raised, and it's a good one.

However someone feels about Sterling as an individual (I personally think he's a pretty crappy excuse for one, by all I've read of this and his past legal history of race related issues), did someone have the right to illegally record him (California isn't vague on that point of all party consent) and did a couple news reporting sites really have the ethical basis to run what was illegal and ..by many people's thinking, immoral?

Are the concerns for social issues and the correct face of thinking among anyone with public exposure now a priority over personal expectations of privacy?

His race, religion, bank balance or any other factor is 100% and absolutely irrelevant to THAT point. Where is the balance between rooting out the undesirable for thought and speech by any means and the right to privacy for speaking whatever one wants, on whatever topic when it's among friends and in closed environments?

However it all turns out, I think that's all an important question. The first example of this in real high profile consequence I think of is Linda Tripp with the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. It was never made light of, she had broken the law by recording. In many ways, those two things were held separate for issues, as they well should be.

Can people now, almost 20 years later, still view two issues now worth looking at, as separate for the right or wrong they each represent ...and should we even try?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It appears the Media will decide when or if state laws apply.

When the Media decides to ruin you. Laws just don't seem to matter.

What matters is...Will it get viewers and help sell more advertising.

The Media is our watchdog....No wonder they are stealing us blind.

originally posted by: KawRider9
This is wrong on soooo many levels.
Freedom of speech?
She did'nt have consent to record him.
I see many lawsuits comming!

It is kind of interesting in he contradicted himself many times by one minute saying he admires some and then saying he doesn't want his 1/2 black mistress to parade in public with these guys that must be her lovers and happen to be black.

First what is up with the whole mistress thing...his wife seems to not care in the least and it is not something he has hidden...weird...

Second, I do not know the context here. Is he pissed that she seems to have black boy toys, or that she is bringing these boy toys to his game as some kind of slap in his face and they just all happen to be black, and so that is how he is identifying them in their conversations.

I can only guess, but in any case she sure orchestrated most of the conversation to support what seems to be part of the motive to record it.

I do find it funny that EVERYONE viewed him as some old racist guy long before this and they didn't care even to the point the NAACP was going to give him a lifetime award. With a lifetime award he must have done something to earn it, so I guess we will never know if this was some embarrassed old guy trying to repay some hurt or some old evil racist doing what he always have done.

a reply to: whyamIhere

It appears the Media will decide when or if state laws apply.

When the Media decides to ruin you. Laws just don't seem to matter.

That does seem to be the case and more as time goes on. That was the whole point of the discussion in journalism tonight. Basically, Slander, Reporters Rights and ethical handling of reporting in general.

It's almost sad in a course like this, to read over the Journalistic code of ethics...(No official one exists, like the Canons of Professional Ethics for attorneys...but many professions have a version I suppose). What is kinda sad is to see how much I and many I know in the older generations would miss and value them. Yet, I wouldn't need to post them anywhere on the net, to know the reaction of near laughter and questions of why any of it should be relevant today by most folks.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: KawRider9
This is wrong on soooo many levels.
Freedom of speech?
She did'nt have consent to record him.
I see many lawsuits comming!

It is kind of interesting in he contradicted himself many times by one minute saying he admires some and then saying he doesn't want his 1/2 black mistress to parade in public with these guys that must be her lovers and happen to be black.

First what is up with the whole mistress thing...his wife seems to not care in the least and it is not something he has hidden...weird...

Second, I do not know the context here. Is he pissed that she seems to have black boy toys, or that she is bringing these boy toys to his game as some kind of slap in his face and they just all happen to be black, and so that is how he is identifying them in their conversations.

I can only guess, but in any case she sure orchestrated most of the conversation to support what seems to be part of the motive to record it.

I do find it funny that EVERYONE viewed him as some old racist guy long before this and they didn't care even to the point the NAACP was going to give him a lifetime award. With a lifetime award he must have done something to earn it, so I guess we will never know if this was some embarrassed old guy trying to repay some hurt or some old evil racist doing what he always have done.

this is spot on. Read and listen to the guy as responding to being publiclu cuckolded and his racist overtones subside quite alot. I am in no way defending a racial issue. But i hear more of a response to being openly and publicly cuckolded in all this. It looks to be so pre medi5ated that the rumours that this is payback to majic johnson looks very credible. Is valery jarret the mastermind of this?

a reply to: DarthOej

Is there anything I forgot?

Yes, Numb nuts you forgot to check your facts. You give a long dissertation and then claim I don't have time to check this, or I didn't check the evidence. Then you pontificate on the subject armed only with witless dialog. Your post was a giant waste of time. Do everyone a favor and post when you have the facts and something important to say. Oh one more thing you forgot, to engage your brain