OT - Donald Sterling Banned from NBA for Life
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced today that (likely soon to be former) LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling is banned from any type of involvement with the league or the Clippers for the duration of his life. This punishment also came with a $2.5M fine, which is the most allowed under the bylaws of the NBA's constitution. Silver also said that the league and its owners will do all things possible to force the sale of the Clippers. Props to Adam Silver and the league's front office for doing everything in their power to remove this horrible person from the league's ranks.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:49 AM ^
Just stop it.
#1 He's paid for his thoughts...even the ignorant ones unless the network feels it's not representing them in the right way
#2 He's not an NBA owner. Just like there have been players that say racist things. It's not the same.
Stop trolling Jobu, why don't they just delete your account altogether?
Oh wait...I think you are serious.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:50 AM ^
I guess the owners, former players and current players he spoke with are ALL wrong.
You're an idiot.
Oh, and you can say ass. See...ASS.
But that is part of the deal when you're a public figure or you impact the image of the NBA.
Don't be a fucking moron.
If the President cheats on his wife and gets his dick sucked by another woman...its a national scandal and he could lose his job. If you do it, you're just another sleazeball.
Same act. Different consquences.
It makes perfect sense and you know it. You want to be ignorant...go ahead. But Sterling didn't break the law, so he's not going to be subject to the same penalties you or I would, he's going to be subject to the penalties of his position and if he's a garbage man, maybe he keeps his job, if he's a player, maybe he keeps his job, he's not...he's an NBA owner. He has to deal with it - and so do you.
The media is going crazy over what one man said. He didn't kill anyone. He didn't target the demise of anyone. He said some pretty outlandish and stupid things.
In Chicago, black men and women are being murdered on a daily basis yet we hear nothing from the same people who were so quick to condemn Donald Sterling. Donald Sterling will end up making many hundreds of millions of dollars when he is forced to sell the team and many families in Chicago will continue to lose loved ones and no one in the media will give a rat's ass.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:51 AM ^
It's the media...they go crazy when Kanye West marries a girl who got famous for blowing a bad rapper/singer on camera.
You really going to make THAT argument?
The media will run with whatever they want and beat the dead horse until it's alive again.
Stupid people be stupid but why everyone is so concerned about his multi-millionaire employees that chose to play/work for him is beyond me.
Would the outcry be the same if an NHL owner said he doesn't like to hang out with white people? (Seriously)
This hypothetical black NHL owner would be the guy that had a real estate empire and didn't like white tenants because they "smell and attract vermin"? And paid many millions to settle numerous lawsuits alleging that he kept whites out of his Beverly Hills apartments?
You try to turn this story on its head to pretend that systemic racism is color-blind and you realize how absurd that proposition is. Seriously.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:31 PM ^
Seriously.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:31 PM ^
...your hypothetical reverse situation doesn't exist. There is no such person (I'm pretty sure Michael Jordan is the only black majority owner of a North American major league team in any sport, and he isn't a slumlord) and speculation on whether there would be outrage against such a person if he turned out to be a racist is just that, speculation.
The problem isn't that Donald Sterling is an asshat that happened to offend people--there's plenty of that in the world. As Eric_in_Dayton said above, if he didn't have a pot to piss in nobody'd care. The problem is that he's a wealthy and powerful asshat that owns a lot of property and is personally responsible for a great deal of housing discrimination (not to mention the various employment-practice claims)..
The day there's a black NHL owner making obnoxious comments about white people, I'll probably be offended. But the fact that such an event were even possible would mean we'd come a long way.
because it doesn't exist. Hence the "what if" question.
Why does it have to mean we've come a long way? Why does the race of owner matter at all? It shouldn't, at all. Sure, a black guy being president can matter by why does it mean "we've come a long way" because an insanely rich black guy likes hockey? There are plenty of insanely rich black guys but I guess they just don't feel like owning an NHL team but if, say, MJ wanted to buy an NHL team it really wouldn't be that hard.
The other problem is that nobody, not Al Sharpton, not the NAACP cared or gave two sh!ts that be discriminated against blacks in housing as long as he kept giving them $. Now that his g/f illegally recorded him and got him on tape saying that things that everyone knew he felt anyway they are all up in arms and disgusted. So, wait, you're disgusted with the guy because he doesn't like posting pictures with black people but the fact that he broke federal laws in discriminated against blacks when it comes to housing is ok as long as he keeps the gravy train flowing through the NAACP? In what world does that make sense????
Also, no, I wouldn't be offended if an NHL owner said he doesn't like hanging out with white people. I really don't give two sh!ts about if someone doesn't like me because of the color of my skin as long as I'm not actually discriminated against (which is required by law).
There should be an Al Sharpton corollary to Godwin's Law, applicable to internet discussions of race.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
and there wasn't any raise/promo/contract in sight because of crappy sales, then I think you' would care.
But UCLA just went full retard
The University of California, Los Angeles says it’s turning down $3 million pledged by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and will return the $425,000 installment he’s already made.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/29/ucla-rejects-3-million-donald-sterling-gift/#ixzz30KNNe9PI
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
I was dumbfounded when I read that. That kind of research is intended to be lifesaving stuff - UCLA just sent the message that they care more that their image is squeaky PC-clean than about the work they do. And considering the importance of the work they do, that's inexcusable.
Reminds me of the old story about the church pastor who was asked how he could accept a donation for the church from a bootlegger, since it was ill-gotten Devil's money; the pastor replies, "the Devil's had it long enough."
I'm all in favor of not giving Sterling any money, but refusing to take it from him, for the purposes for which it was intended - awful.
(P.S. - the funny part here is that Sterling took out an ad in the LA Times, pretending to be UCLA thanking him for his donation. What a guy.)
April 29th, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^
April 30th, 2014 at 12:57 AM ^
...but what I honestly think happened is he cut his hoe off when he wife got mad.
So she got revenge and is trying to "end" him.
That's why you can't trust these hoes. Snoop said it in '94, "we don't love these hoes." Can't turn a hoe into a housewife.
You would think with Sterling in LA - he'd know the code of the street. You keep them at a distance and you never give him an oppotunity to do you like this.
He was slacking on his pimpin...started saying shit he didn't need to be saying in front of her, and she capitalized. He would've been better off pulling the ex-wife aside and just saying "honey, I fucked up with this chic...but I have to keep giving her these cars and this money or she's going to be a problem."
Or just don't be a racist who pays for girlfriends 40 years younger - that could solve your problems as well. Either or.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:13 AM ^
...or feeling sorry for him.
The ignorance in this world is scary sometimes.
Note: I'm NOT saying you have to AGREE with the decision. But for ANYONE not to see why it was made is beyond me.
You don't have to like it, that's obviously opinion and go for it...feel the way you want. No one can argue whether or not you should agree or disagree. But for someone to truly not get why the NBA made the decision they did is just ignorant.
donald sterling has done terrible thems for many years. this particular incident is bad, sure, but it pales in comparison to some shit that he did in the past. the fact that the media ignored all that and is jumping on this is very frustrating and annoying.
Employment discrimination on the basis of race is illegal. You might want to study this before you open your salon:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
If she owns the shop outright she won't have to sell unless she needs to to raise the cash to pay the penalty (not to mention her attorneys' fees). But if she's a franchisee, Title VII violations could probably trigger the "morals" clause in her franchise agreement and its possible the franchisor would terminate the franchise. Whether they would probably depends on how much embarrassment she was causing them.