NBA bans Sterling for life

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: - The attached poll is not submitted by the author of the thread. It was attached when I was trying to merge 4-5 threads on the same topic and cannot be reversed. Apologies to TND and RD2.

Fox News: Clippers owner Donald Sterling banned for life from NBA, fined $2.5 million by NBAhttp://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/...ed-for-life-from-nba-fined-25-million-by-nba/http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/...ed-for-life-from-nba-fined-25-million-by-nba/

DEVELOPING: The NBA threw the book at LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, banning him for life, fining him $2.5 million and raising the possibility of a forced sale of the team over racist remarks he allegedly made to an ex-girlfriend that surfaced on a tape recording.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver made the announcement at a New York press conference after Donald Sterling, the Clippers owner, told Fox News that the team is not for sale and he had no intention of selling the team.

Silver, who succeeded David Stern as NBA Commissioner in February, said the league concluded its investigation into the matter and interviewed Sterling. He determined that the voice heard on the audio tape obtained by TMZ was indeed Sterling's and called the comments "deeply offensive" and "harmful."

I didn't think they'd do it. I think he deserves it. I'm not even sure they can.

I hear a thundering herd --

I think it is lawyers beating a path to Donald Sterling's door.

 

[Salty]

Lifetime ban!!!

Simply uncalled for - unnecessary.

Let the fans decide - if they don't like it - boycott the Clipper home games.


If you remember, Marge Schotts went thur this when she owned the Cincinnati Reds. Her "punishment" was banned for the 1993 season. I seem to recall she had to undergo "sensitively training". That would be more reasonable.

Now, what the owner said was dumb - but looks likes folks in high profile positions no longer have the freedom of speech.

This is PC* gone amuck.


Salty

* Political corruption

 

[ccrobinson]

Now, what the owner said was dumb - but looks likes folks in high profile positions no longer have the freedom of speech.

Why doesn't he? Is the government going to arrest him for what he said?

This is PC* gone amuck.

What does the U.S. government have to do with this?


Actions have consequences. What's so wrong about that?

 

[preachinjesus]

This was a good and wise decision by the NBA. I applaud them and am thankful they had the moxy to make this decision.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I'm not a basketball fan. I played when I was a kid, but now, I'm pretty much just a baseball and college football and, to a lesser extent, hockey, guy.

First, I have a hard time going after someone for what he believed to be a private conversation.

Second, this happened so quickly, with no due process, and is such a harsh punishment for someone who was deemed worthy of a lifetime achievement aware by the NAACP, that this smacks more of a PC witch-hunt than it does any kind of sincere attempt to rectify the situation.

While I don't expect the NBA to according to Biblical standards, but as a Christian, the Bible informs my worldview and one of the things that the Bible teaches us is that the point of discipline is to correct and restore. This was about vengeance and bring an issue that is prevalent in the league to a quick and convenient end. I don't believe anyone is well served by that.

Third, am I the only one who thinks it's stunningly hypocritical that the NBA turns a blind eye to every crime and misdeed committed by the players, but then want to ban this guy and take away his livelihood for a private conversation? Drug arrest? No problem! Spousal abuse? It's all good! Gang ties? No problem, Allen! Rape? Well, she probably had it coming to her! Say a naughty word? Crucify him!

Like I said, I'm not a basketball guy, but I am a business guy and one thing I understand is that competition trumps PC. They can claim all they like that they did this for the good of the NBA, but the fact remains that what's good for the NBA is putting on the best show and the Clippers, being in the play-offs, show that they were doing just that under Sterling. So, what's the problem?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Why doesn't he? Is the government going to arrest him for what he said?

When they can take your property and your money simply for being stupid, the government doesn't have to arrest him. The outcome, in fact, is worse than if the government did arrest him.

What does the U.S. government have to do with this?

What does P.C. have to do with the U.S. government?

Actions have consequences. What's so wrong about that?

The consequences don't fit the circumstances. He's stupid, yes. But how do you justify taking the team away from him? And what's to stop them from taking the team away from the next owner who, for example, has an affair, gets arrested for cocaine possession, commits a felony, etc.? "What's wrong with that"? Why not ask, "Why didn't they just shoot him while they were at it?"

 

[Zaac]

The NBA is essentially a large corporation made up of 30 teams whose owners agree to abide by the NBA bylaws.

They don't have to go through due process. As a private league, they can hire and fire as they please especially if it's in violation of the morals clause about a detriment to the league.

What this smacks of is people not knowing who or what they were dealing. There are probably others but they'll bite their tongues.

And the NBA hasn't turned a blind eye to anything other than in the imaginations of folks who think so. They are constantly fining players.

This was a very appropriate outcome.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The NBA is essentially a large corporation made up of 30 teams whose owners agree to abide by the NBA bylaws. ... They don't have to go through due process. As a private league, they can hire and fire as they please especially if it's in violation of the morals clause about a detriment to the league.

You obviously didn't research this before you posted it. You are incorrect.

Like everyone else, Sterling speech is protected from government intrusion by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which protects the right to freedom of speech. There are already commentators online and on-air pointing to the key words in that last sentence are "government intrusion." They claim an individual or a corporation is exempt from a claim of violation of First Amendment rights, but that is also incorrect. It will depend on what prior restraint is codified in an NBA ownership contract, and that applies to the due process aspects of the ban as well.

Under the U.S. Constitution Sterling also has rights which keep him from being deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process. In this case Sterling is more than arguably being deprived of his property through the forced sale of the team. However, once again these due process generally only apply to the government, and not to private organizations. But there are contractually granted rights to owners of NBA teams, and further, the bylaws of the league must provide for a method by which a team owner may be forced to sell, or there is no methodology by which today's announcement could be anything but bluster.

Sterling will have his say before the league owners. Silver can posture and bloviate all he wants. The decision is in the hands of the owners, if Sterling chooses to avail himself of that process. Then again, he bought the team for $12 million in 1981 and it is now worth nearly $600 million. Nice profit if you can get it. And he can. So he might.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Someday they will come after our businesses, our property, because our message is offensive.

Good to know who'll be on their team.

 

[go2church]

Believe whatever, say whatever you want. Nobody is saying he couldn't or can't say what he said. The NBA is saying we don't people who said the type of things Sterling said, in their "club". There are bylaws set out for occasions such as this and the NBA is going to put them in action. They are well within their rights to do so. Is there going to legal haranguing, you bet, that seems to be Sterlings m.o. when things go against him. But the new commissioner is a very well respected lawyer, don't think he would pull the trigger on something like this if he wasn't confident he would prevail.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The NBA is saying we don't people who said the type of things Sterling said, in their "club".

No, the NBA is saying their fan base is 38% minorities and women, and what Sterling said is bad for business, so he's gotta go. That's the bottom line.

They can't make it stand up, though. I don't believe three-quarters of the ownership will vote to force a sale.

SB Nation: How NBA owners can force Donald Sterling to sell the Los Angeles Clippers http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/...rling-suspension-la-clippers-sale-adam-silverhttp://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/...rling-suspension-la-clippers-sale-adam-silver

Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, NBA owners also have the right, by three-fourths vote, to revoke ownership if an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely."

I don't know what the NBA ownership contract says, and it probably does have some vague clauses about acceptable public behavior and interaction with the media. I doubt it covers private conversations Sterling never intended to be made public, and that's going to be the rub.

The article claims Silver has all the votes. I doubt it. They may say "hell, yeah, vote him out!" today, but sometime before that vote is taken, they're going to consider their own past private actions and conversations and wonder if they might be Silver's next intended victim.

 

[go2church]

I'm not a basketball fan. I played when I was a kid, but now, I'm pretty much just a baseball and college football and, to a lesser extent, hockey, guy.

First, I have a hard time going after someone for what he believed to be a private conversation.

Second, this happened so quickly, with no due process, and is such a harsh punishment for someone who was deemed worthy of a lifetime achievement aware by the NAACP, that this smacks more of a PC witch-hunt than it does any kind of sincere attempt to rectify the situation.

While I don't expect the NBA to according to Biblical standards, but as a Christian, the Bible informs my worldview and one of the things that the Bible teaches us is that the point of discipline is to correct and restore. This was about vengeance and bring an issue that is prevalent in the league to a quick and convenient end. I don't believe anyone is well served by that.

Third, am I the only one who thinks it's stunningly hypocritical that the NBA turns a blind eye to every crime and misdeed committed by the players, but then want to ban this guy and take away his livelihood for a private conversation? Drug arrest? No problem! Spousal abuse? It's all good! Gang ties? No problem, Allen! Rape? Well, she probably had it coming to her! Say a naughty word? Crucify him!

Like I said, I'm not a basketball guy, but I am a business guy and one thing I understand is that competition trumps PC. They can claim all they like that they did this for the good of the NBA, but the fact remains that what's good for the NBA is putting on the best show and the Clippers, being in the play-offs, show that they were doing just that under Sterling. So, what's the problem?

Public conversation now, NBA didn't have anything to do with that. They are reacting to new information.

It was investigated, Sterling admitted it was him on the tape, they are private group with bylaws and procedures, what more do you want?

The NBA fines players all the time for all types of things. The NBA has chosen to collectively bargain with the players and a contract has been signed, so there are limits to what can and cannot be done.

Sterling isn't losing his livelihood, he is multibillionaire in the real estate market of Los Angles. Plus some reports have the team valued at 750 million to 1 billion dollars, he is doing fine.

He did so much more than say a dirty word. His racist points of view are just awful. He was hurting the NBA, players weren't going to play, advertisers were backing out and fans where saying they would stay away, so big deal.

There are times when there is an overreaction and things are made a big deal that really aren't. This isn't one of those times.

 

[go2church]

No, the NBA is saying their fan base is 38% minorities and women, and what Sterling said is bad for business, so he's gotta go. That's the bottom line.

They can't make it stand up, though. I don't believe three-quarters of the ownership will vote to force a sale.I don't know what the NBA ownership contract says, and it probably does have some vague clauses about acceptable public behavior and interaction with the media. I doubt it covers private conversations Sterling never intended to be made public, and that's going to be the rub.

The article claims Silver has all the votes. I doubt it. They may say "hell, yeah, vote him out!" today, but sometime before that vote is taken, they're going to consider their own past private actions and conversations and wonder if they might be Silver's next intended victim.

Silver (or any other lawyer for that matter) doesn't make this move unless they know they are going to have enough votes.

Not only will this stand up, but if it doesn't (no chance) expect 75% of the league to walk. Now how's your bottom line?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Public conversation now, NBA didn't have anything to do with that. They are reacting to new information.

It was investigated, Sterling admitted it was him on the tape, they are private group with bylaws and procedures, what more do you want?

Did some more research, and though I'm not in a position to say with authority, it looks like the NBA jumped the gun and has probably put itself in a position to loose this fight, and maybe even have to pay Sterling.

Vegress: Conversation recording laws, state by state complianceState by State Compliance State by State Compliance

The Supreme Court of California in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney applied California wiretap law to a company located in Georgia who routinely recorded business phone calls with its clients in California. California law requires all party consent to record any telephone calls, while Georgia law requires only one party consent. The state’s high court, applying choice of law principles, reasoned that the failure to apply California law would “impair California’s interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California residents by California law more severely than the application of California law would impair any interests of the State of Georgia.”

Further down in the article, it is stated that the state Supreme Court has since ruled that private conversations are subject to the same statute. The blurb speaks of the "all consent" law, which California and eleven other states have that requires all parties to a conversation to give consent to recording of that conversation. Sterling obviously did not know his gold-digging mistress was recording their exchange.

I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me like they've made a grand production out of punishing someone over illegally acquired evidence.

I'd say the NBA has stepped in it big time.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Public conversation now, NBA didn't have anything to do with that. They are reacting to new information.

It was investigated, Sterling admitted it was him on the tape, they are private group with bylaws and procedures, what more do you want?

I would like at least a hearing.

The NBA fines players all the time for all types of things.

Do they fine them millions? How many of them have they banned for life?

Sterling isn't losing his livelihood, he is multibillionaire in the real estate market of Los Angles. Plus some reports have the team valued at 750 million to 1 billion dollars, he is doing fine.

Oh, well, if he's only losing "750 million to 1 billion", that's different. Why didn't you just say so?

He did so much more than say a dirty word. His racist points of view are just awful.

And you believe people should be punished for believing things that don't meet with your approval?

He was hurting the NBA

How so?

players weren't going to play

Right. Players were just going to abandon their teammates during a playoff run, commit break of contract, forfeit pay and, best of all, bring racketeering charges and civil lawsuits upon themselves.

advertisers were backing out and fans where saying they would stay away, so big deal.

Yes, but they were Clippers' advertisers and Clippers' fans. Not the NBA.

There are times when there is an overreaction and things are made a big deal that really aren't. This isn't one of those times.

I disagree for the reasons stated in my first post.

 

[Berean]

I naturally disagree with every thing Mr Sterling said; But is this yelling fire in a crowded theater;

 

[church mouse guy]

And Baptist Board members say talk is cheap....

 

[carpro]

Now comes the ban of racist players...

Naaah Won't happen. Too many of them would be black. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[go2church]

Did some more research, and though I'm not in a position to say with authority, it looks like the NBA jumped the gun and has probably put itself in a position to loose this fight, and maybe even have to pay Sterling.

Further down in the article, it is stated that the state Supreme Court has since ruled that private conversations are subject to the same statute. The blurb speaks of the "all consent" law, which California and eleven other states have that requires all parties to a conversation to give consent to recording of that conversation. Sterling obviously did not know his gold-digging mistress was recording their exchange.

I'm no lawyer, but it looks to me like they've made a grand production out of punishing someone over illegally acquired evidence.

I'd say the NBA has stepped in it big time.

Oh, there is no doubt he is going to get paid, looking like a cool billion or so right now.

The NBA weren't the ones doing the taping, the report came via TMZ and Deadspin, two "news" organizations. At that point they are reacting to public information. Plus I think with the real possibility of 75% of your work force walking out is sufficient cause to say this owner was hurting the league and according to their by laws could be voted out of the league, regardless of how the information came out.

 

[go2church]

I would like at least a hearing.
not required according to by laws


Do they fine them millions? How many of them have they banned for life?

The fine is proportional. There have been a few.

Oh, well, if he's only losing "750 million to 1 billion", that's different. Why didn't you just say so?

He's not losing this, the sale profits will go to him


And you believe people should be punished for believing things that don't meet with your approval?

If I started a club or league and you wanted in, you would have to confirm to my wishes or not be in the club. Thus is what is happening to Sterling


How so?



Right. Players were just going to abandon their teammates during a playoff run, commit break of contract, forfeit pay and, best of all, bring racketeering charges and civil lawsuits upon themselves.

According to reports, that seems to the case. If it actually happened would be another mystery left for people to discuss. Can only go by what they said.

Yes, but they were Clippers' advertisers and Clippers' fans. Not the NBA.

Wouldn't have stay isolated, especially if players walked


I disagree for the reasons stated in my first post.

I have a different point of view