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.
I don't think that this is a time for celebratory illegal narcotics--even if Gilbert is a Sparty.
now bring in the legion of anti-trust attorneys. All the high-fiving is great, except everyone seems to be underestimating what a litigious son of a bitch this Sterling really is.
in the context of the other owners, he ain't that rich. He will bleed what he can out of the league, but I'll be shocked if he takes it to court. He will lose if he does. And, I suspect his other family members will do what they can to avoid it as well.
And I'm not sure he would even have standing to bring a anti-trust claim.
seems like the smart thing to do for him is take the highest and best offer and shuffle off to live the rest of his life in as much peace as a racist asshole can get. Delaying via lawsuits would probably lead to the steady destruction of value for the team as it has to be worth the most it has ever been worth right this minute. Could probably cost him a $100mm or more in lost value and for what? His reputation is long gone and nothing he does will ever get it back so the only thing he can do now is lose.
He might be more open to this than people think.
As the longtime Clippers owner, I'm sure he's used to it.
If Sterling killed his mistress would he be vilified to the extent he currently is by media and public?
I'm not asking 'Would he be banned by NBA?"
I'm not condoning what he said.
I had a Black friend whom I respect greatly say today that racist remarks are worse than murder.I was flabbergasted by that remark hence the question.
Yes. Let's see: an 80 year old NBA owner murders his 30-something girlfriend. No story there. s/
And what is the point of your query?
murder would generate less villification.I asked because I find it disconcerting that spoken words (vile as they are) are/would be considered more offensive than killing someone and wondered if I was alone in that thought.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:45 AM ^
...wouldn't he be in, um, JAIL?!
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be an owner anymore.
the OJ case would have gotten more coverage if it was about racism rather than murder.
Thanks for asking, but I thought about it.
The level of outrage is higher not because everyone thinks racism is worse than murder. It's higher because it's much more personal.
You likely wouldn't hear people say that they are personaly hurt or offended by Sterling killing his girlfriend. It's not an experience people can connect with in the same way they do racism or discrimination.
You hear droves of people saying that they are personally hurt or offended whenever someone makes a racist, misogynistic, or homophobic remark. Everyone at some point in their life has experienced some sort of discrimination or alienation based on factors beyond their control. It's strikes closer to home and is much more personal for people. That's why you see more outrage.
Also, it's not illegal to be bigoted. It is illegal to murder someone. The legal system deals with murder, and public outrage is the way our society deals with discrimination.
Thanks
when you have epidemic black on black crime/murders in the inner city and not a peep from the same people cry racism when ever it poitically or financially suits them. I guess you can't make money off of the death when it's black on black.
...there are people who care about both.
Let's say Sterling doesn't put up a fight and decides not to sue the NBA by hiring a prominent black attorney or Gloria Alred to represent him. Let's say he does sell. For someone who originally bought the team for $12.5 million, he is surely going to make out like a bandit regardless of his ban.
I'm hopeful that $700mm figure (or more because it's LA) is what gets him to slink away quickly. But......he's already worth a couple of billion right? Who knows what this idiot is capable of in the name of damage control.
He's one wealthy bigot!
Will the o-line will be vastly improved this year? Kidding...
1. The guy shouldn't be in charge of anything. Would be great if he agreed to sell the team and donated some of the proceeds. I realize him donating money is easy because he has tons of it but it can still be used for positive change.
2. I feel for the players but i'm more concerned for the people that deal with this type of discrimination that don't make millions of dollars and suffer from much more then one out of touch white guy.
3. It's funny to hear the Clippers say that he is no longer part of the team. Maybe not for long but doesn't he technically employ all of those people? What a weird dynamic.
Everyone knew that Sterling was a jerk. A jerk that would pay you millions of dollars.
And if you could secretely tape a lot of the players in the NBA, i think you'd hear many of them talk trash about whites, gays, women, latinos, blacks, asians, etc etc.
The problem with Donald Sterling is that he broke the most basic rule of cheating on your wife, "NEVER TRUST THE WHORE YOU ARE BANGING!"
Well he didn't really discriminate here as an NBA owner (he's done some pretty appalling things, his "I give them food, houses, cars" comment was pretty -- no Donald they earned, they're not your slaves as much as you'd like them to be) but the guy's been sued and has had judgments entered against him on housng discrimination very recently.
He's a racist, clearly, but he didn't discriminate
That makes it hard to explain the repeated massive fines for housing discrimination... and the ongoing legal issues regarding employment discrimination.
April 29th, 2014 at 10:29 PM ^
Has anyone pointed out that this ruling is unconstitutional because Sterling has the right to freedom of speech? I don't think i've seen anyone mention that yet.
/s
Nobody has pointed that out, because it isn't true. Sterling has the right to free speech, and the responsibility to face up to the consequences of his speech, as we all do. The NBA is just saying if you want to say things like that about people who are important to our league in so many ways, you're going to be fined and we're not going to let you play in our sandbox. Just like any other employer or trade association can.
I wasn't talking about the relative equity of punishments handed out by the NBA, that's a separate subject. I was responding to the assertion that the punishment is unconstitutional. I actually believe that while serious measures are called for here, the lifetime ban is excessive considering the league hasn't punished him before.
Then again, he's 80 years old, overweight and banging women 40 years younger, a lifetime ban probably isn't going to be too long. He's a massive coronary waiting to happen.
April 29th, 2014 at 11:25 PM ^
Who ever purchases the team should drop the Clippers name.
Pelicans is already taken
Because then I could probably get away with putting a post on the board with the caption "Dan Snyder to Purchase LA Clippers and Promises to Rename Franchise to Honor African Americans."
The meltdown would almost be worth the trip to Bolivia.
They could hire him to design a logo.
That should make up for Don's stupidity. And let the Bloods get a free hot dog and drink one game a month.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:47 AM ^
That way ESPN can run with this story even longer...
Chuck will never cost the NBA a Buck with his words.
The leaking of Sterling's private bigotry does.
But, he's already stated he won't sell the team as I predicted. He's a fighter and doesn't give a rat's ass what others think.
Just for pure enjoyment, i'd love to see him threaten the NBA by saying that if the owners vote him out, he'll start naming names and letting the skeletons out that the NBA would rather not have out about itself and those in the organization.
It would be rather interesting to see Donald employ the scortched earth strategy. Donald isn't the only unsavory owner or person in the NBA.
From an article written at the time:
"I hear ESPN is trying to bleep me and some of you guys are trying to make a controversy," he said. "There's not gonna be a controversy. I was joking around with one of my friends. And that's it. If you don't like it, bleep you and your families, too."
Later, in the West's locker room, Barkley said: "ESPN tried to make something out of nothing . . . I'm gonna get them back in the long run. They need me more than I need them. It was a joke, taken out of context."
Before the game, he said: "That's typical journalism, trying to create a controversy when there is none."
Suns owner Jerry Colangelo and coach Paul Westphal blew off the incident.
"That's not worth two cents to me," Colangelo said. "Charles isn't anything like (his ESPN comments) would make him appear. If people can't figure that out, that's their problem."
Westphal took it a step farther.
"Charles is the least prejudiced person I know," he said. "He only teases people he likes.
"If anybody can't take a joke better than that, they should find something to do with their time, eat more bran.
"There are two things about Charles, if you know him and understand him: No. 1, he's an intense competitor; No. 2, he's a comedian and he mixes those at random (and) pulls it off superbly well most of the time.
"I feel sorry for people who don't have anything better to do than misinterpret what he says on purpose. It's as if they're looking around, waiting to be offended."