OT: Did the NBA just open up a can of worms?
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/boot-sterling-nba-team-owners-ma…
I posted yesterday that trying to remove Donald Sterling could back fire on the NBA as Sterling won't go quietly into the night. He's always had a chip on his shoulder and if he believes he has been unfairly targeted, as I can bet he has here right or wrong, that he could possibly use a scorched earth strategy to counter the NBA's punishment. It has already been reported that Sterling told a Fox reporter that he will not sell his team
Don't think for a minute that he's the only creepy character in the NBA. The owners have to vote to have him removed. Some of those owners might want to think twice about their votes as I am betting there are stories about them that they do not want out in the public.
And certain players should also be careful. We already know that many of them aren't the most honorable, ethical or racially tolerant as we would think.
The NBA is a very seedy place.
As they say, be careful for what you wish for.
The flip side to all of this is that the NBA guarantees that Donald will get a more than fair price for his team to leave quietly. And then Magic Johnson and his billionaire white investors will have their team.
I was a bit worked up. Sorry :(
But's it close...
No, actually it's only very recently that people would consider Jews to be white. During the time of the Holocaust, they were most certainly not considered to be white. It's absurd that as a white man, I might talk about how terribly "my people" have suffered at the hands of....other white men?
April 30th, 2014 at 10:34 AM ^
April 30th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
He knew he was being recorded; he would even listen to her tapes so he could remember what he said.
I don't think she'd have any trouble establishing consent, if it came to that.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:00 AM ^
According to V. Stiviano he knew he was being recorded. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but her simply saying that doesn't mean its true.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^
You'd had to be some special kind of arrogant asshole to consent to allowing THAT to be recorded.
Since Don Sterling left San Diego he has been relatively quiet for 30 years. I am calling 100% bullshit on the consent and you can bet she has nothing in writing to say otherwise.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
California is a two-party state.
Of course, if somewhere on those 100+ hours of recordings she's got "Hey, honey, can you play that back? I forgot what I said" she's probably in the clear.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
This is not a player, this is an owner.
This is not an action, is a set of beliefs.
His plantation-style attitude towards his players would not be tolerated by his players, future free agents or the NBPA.
Whether or not you think justice was met, the fact of the matter is that Sterling put the league in a position that was antagonistic towards their labor union and their fans. Furthermore, Sterling may have put himself at a huge disadvantage for all future negotiations with talent.
These are actions Sterling forced the NBA into as a matter of pragmatism, not ethics.
People fundametaly don't understand what this whole thing is about. This isn't just about the comments that Sterling made. If Sterling had just made these comments one time and there was this outrage, he would have gotten into some modicum of trouble for sure, but there is no way in hell they would have banned him from the league for life.
This is about nearly 4 decades of racist behavior, consistently embarrassing the league, ruffling the feathers of all of the other owners, driving away fans, sponsors, and alienating everyone who works for or with him.
The day a player does that, their ass will be booted out of the league because no one will sign them.
That's part of the issue too. The NBA has recourse against the players. If a player is a racist prick who is awful, nobody sign him. He'll go away rather quickly.
If an owner is a horribly racist prick who is awful, it takes an effort of this magnitude to make him go away.
People equating an employee to a boss just don't get it. There is a difference between a Walmart manager saying some stupid shit, and C. Douglas Mcmillon sayinng some stupid shit. Both of them are going to draw ire, but one is going to bring a fucking tidal wave of it.
The first difference is that Ron Artest is an employee. Every business occasionally has employees that do stupid things. That isn't to say that employees doing stupid things is OK, only that they don't represent the views of the NBA or any team while doing so. Donald Sterling, on the other hand, is a business owner. Like it or not, he ultimately controlls a team and is the face of the team. As such, his views and actions are much more problematic.
The second difference is that although what Artest did was horrible, it was a one-time thing. Artest isn't a great guy, but it's not like his life ethos is that "fighting is OK." But even though Sterling's words may not have been as immediately damaging, it's not like someone can switch on and off being a racist. Basically, Artest could come back because there wasn't a huge risk he would start fighting fans again, but Sterling can't come back because people will always know that he's a racist.
The third difference is that a suspension means something different for a player than it does for an owner. By being suspended for the rest of that season, Artest lost out on about $7 million in salary and one year out of the 10-12 years he could reasonably expect to play basketball. But suspending an owner doesn't cost them any money, and basically forces them to watch games on TV instead of in person. It isn't nearly as big of a punishment as it is for a player, which is why more drastic measures were needed.
Hypocrisy?
The league is banning Stern for life, becaus they think it will lose them money.
The league didn't ban Artest for life (just one season), because they didn't think it would lose them money.
There is no hypocrisy or double standard here - the standard is "what will make us the most filthy lucre".
Any Lawyer can get the ban lifted. Being a racist might make you a jerk and not a nice person but there isn't anything illegal about it. In all honesty the person who should get in the most trouble is the person who tapped him illegally. According to this http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law California law prohibits you from tap recording anybody with out their consent. I don't condone racism by any means but if we start down this slippery rope of censoring and persucuting anybody with a different way of thinking than we're becoming more North Korea and less United States.
There is a distinction between illegality and violation of rules. Ryan Braun's doping may not have been illegal, but MLB certainly had the right to suspend him for it.
Sterling is a racist and that is sad in this day and age but he didn't violate any rules. He was illegally taped by somebody in a private moment that than went viral. There is a big difference between being in public and saying or acting racist which obviously is a violation of NBA code of conduct and being in a private moment and being illegally taped. Once again I am not condoning his statements just saying he truthfully didn't violate any league rule.
As long as Sterling's victims were primarily lower-income black and Hispanic apartment tenants, it was easy for basketball's power players to see him as a harmless eccentric or fun renegade: 'I like Donald," Mavericks owner Mark Cuban told The Mag in 2009. 'He plays by his own rules.'
Or to identify with him as a success story with some inevitable skeletons in the closet: 'I heard about the housing case -- what can I do about that?' Mark Jackson said five years ago. 'That's his business, and it's in the courts. A lot of players, owners, people at ESPN have been charged or sued over something.' That's the same Jackson who said Monday that fans should boycott Tuesday night's game in Los Angeles.
Peter Keating at ESPN.com
is the alternative to trying to push him to sell?
You must not have read that far down.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^
You said this:
"The flip side to all of this is that the NBA guarantees that Donald will get a more than fair price for his team to leave quietly. And then Magic Johnson and his billionaire white investors will have their team."
You never suggested anything. You just stated the possibility of Magic Johnson and his Guggenheim group buying the team and made an odd comment about the race of the possible owners. Oddly enough, I dont think YOU read that far down.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:29 AM ^
Imagine for a second that he just decides to keep it. This isn't totally outlandish as any forced sale tha he opposes might be tied up in the legal process for years.
If he continues as the owner next year, even if he can't really be involved in any way, won't sponsors and fans just boycott the place? I have a hard time believing that too many companies will want to be associated with the Clippers as long as he is.
Some have placed the value in the $700 million range. Assuming that's true, how much of that value is destroyed by him keeping the franchise? It's almost ceratainly in his best financial interest to sell the team soon for the best offer he can get.
That said - the dude is clearly crazy, so he might not care.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
Not only the spnsors and fans - but the players and coach will likely be out as well, and I wouldn't put it beyond Adam Silver to make them all free-agents if Sterling wants to play hard ball. Then the fans won't have to boycott because there won't be anything worth watching.
I agree with you that the smart thing would be for Sterling to sell while his team has value. But the guy is 80, who knows if he'll do the smart thing.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:05 PM ^
What you suggest is one possibility, but relieving him of his payroll might ease the financial squeeze and make it easier for Sterling to drag things out.
If the owners vote to force him out and he refuses, would it be possible for the league to escrow his portion of the revenue share until he relents?
I wish there were copies of the NBA's franchise agreements floating around.
but there's no photo, video, or audio evidence of him in the act, it's not uncommon for them to be able to survive. However, once that sort of evidence is widely available—like tweeting pics of your junk—the situation is changed immensely.
If there wasn't audio available in this situation, and it was just Sterling's girlfriend making the allegations with no proof, this wouldn't be more than a minor controversy. It's been well-established for years that Sterling is basically a bigot, but it's all been based on what other people say happened, like the Massimino incident.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:16 AM ^
Well, and the fact that he was charged with housing discrimination on the basis of race. That's a pretty big red flag.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:17 AM ^
but there was a mountain of damning sworn testimony available to any reporter that had wanted to make an issue of Sterling's racism. You don't think this would have played in the media, in the heart of the foreclosure crunch?
Is she one of those black people that stink? [...] Just evict the bitch.
Ed.: I guess not. I just found that very statement quoted in an ESPN Magazine article in 2009, when it apparently had no legs.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
I agree that the quote attributed to him about evicting that person is damning, but if the quote just exists on paper, it's fundamentally different in its impact than a video or audio of him saying the same thing. I'm not saying that's the way people should react, but in my experience and observations, your average person reacts very differently when they can actually see or hear the person saying or doing something.
That's one reason why defense attorneys hate it when videotapes of their clients committing an alleged crime are shown in a courtroom—they know the impact on a jury is devastating, even if the circumstantial evidence is itself overwhelming.
From what I understand, he might not have a choice in selling his team. It is a Franchise, not his personal business, and the NBA retains the rights to that franchise and can revoke it. It seems certain that Silver has the votes he needs to simply revoke Sterling's stake in the Clippers. In that scenario, the NBA would handle the process of selling the team, Sterling would have no say in who buys it. Is it a slipperly slope? Possibly, but it is also a reminder that Owners are not exempt from punishment for tarnishing the image of the league.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^
That the owners have to vote on the matter to force him to sell. My point and the point of the article is that that some owners might balk at voting to remove him from ownership due to their skeletons. It wouldn't be beneath Sterling to unleash info on others. He;s been an owner for a long time. It is possible he knows a lot of things that the NBA/Owners do not want him to divulge. Sterling is a very strange guy with a very thin skin.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^
He already knows the vote of the owners (which will be unanimous). The possible "threat" of him releasing some skeletons pales in comparison to getting rid of a terrible racist. And quite honestly, are you going to believe him if/when he starts saying negative things about the NBA?
April 30th, 2014 at 10:07 AM ^
Sterling spoke with all the owners prior to announcing the punishment.
He has the votes. Otherwise, he wouldn't have announced that punishment.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:11 AM ^
Yes, thanks.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
Really good thing to bring up. The claim that Sterling is so morally bankrupt as to be undeserving of owning an NBA team is not appealing to me - even murderers have a right to property, collecting on investments, and so forth. However, Sterling voluntarily agreed to stipulations regarding his ownership. I don't often like the idea of vigorous housing associations or what-have-you, but if one agreed to that type of restriction on ownership, one should be held to it.
Hey NBA (or any other sports/business/political) figure...don't open your mouth and be a racist and/or a bigot. It's 2014 people, just shut your mouth no matter what you feel or believe.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
"It's 2014 people, just shut your mouth no matter what you feel or believe."
That was sarcasm right? Or just in the context of being a bigot....I hope?
with TMZ now having a sports department I am interested to see who gets 'exposed' next... this is just the tip of the iceberg... wait until some player is caught on tape saying ridiculously inappropriate things... then what?
jdon
April 30th, 2014 at 10:05 AM ^
Riley Cooper?
I am thinking that they will probably want to tell a great story and whip everyone into a media frenzy. I would expect it to be a black man next...
jdon
There are bigger issues that will continue to go unrecognized and unfixed, but the NBA got this one 100% right. And the OP might want to check himself when he calls the NBA a "seedy place." With the number of people involved in any professional sports organization there are bound to be questionable people at all levels. Mgoblog is inevitably a "seedy place." I can't wait for the next ignorant hockey comment (and I like hockey) about how much harder they work, more they care, how better they are as human beings, etc. Racism is easy when everyone's aware of it, I just wish the subtle ignorance would cease.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:12 AM ^
is defined as white defaming black. The fact is that racism can work either direction ... and please wake me when the shoe is one the other foot.
Racism should never be tolerated and the NBA did what it had to do. If this leads to "other incidents" of racism in the NBA then so be it. It needs to be rejected at every level !!!
Go Blue!
April 30th, 2014 at 10:25 AM ^
that would tell you that minorities are incapable of being racists. You'll find many so called professors in African American Studies and other departments at major universities, including Michigan, that will tell you this as well. They will say, "it is impossible for minorities to be racists."
April 30th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
What's the difference between a professor and a "so-called professor"?
April 30th, 2014 at 12:01 PM ^
April 30th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^
Anyone who can attempt to rationalize hating on another race is either a close-minded bigot, a politician, or Donald Sterling himself.
I suppose it was fine for Hitler to rationalize his hate for Jews, further justifying his actions?
There is no hope!
People wouldn't know who he is if he's remained an impoverished artist ranting about Jews in a single beer hall. He wouldn't have had any influence. His hatred for Jews is remembered because he gained more and more policital power and eventually ran a country.
I need to refresh my page before I start typing the same response someone else did 5 minutes before me.
Racism is racism, regardless of your reasons. Hitler hated Jews because he thought they were to blame for WWI and conspiring against Germany and her interests. Extreme example is extreme but just because you have "reasons" for hating another group of people does not make that right.
Ah, institutional racism.
When you can't blame your problems on real racism, just move the goal posts.
Sure:
You are speaking of the slave era of the United States. You're justifying hatred of white people today by black people because of the past actions of certain white people.
Essentially, you're saying its okay to hate an entire group who belongs to a different background if someone of said background has harmed someone of your background or someone close to you. So my family is of an Irish background: You're saying I have the right to hate the English due to 1000 years of oppression. I think that's simple-minded, but it seems to work for you.
I think its attitudes like yours that create such diviseness in this country.
Good enough?
Anyway, MGoBlog isn't really the place for this discussion.