NBA bans Sterling for life

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Sorry, trying to merge some of these threads and closed by mistake.

I got them merged, but there may be some minor confusion, but not as confusing as all those threads.

The one major problem is that RD2's poll got attached to TND's original post. Apologies to both my brethren for that.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is a "Best interest of the game clause" which is an open ended clause giving the commissioner broad disciplinary powers. Google NBA constitution article 24 (l).

I did. Found this. Silver's on thin ice, and the temperature is about 45 degrees.

Forbes: Why Adam Silver's Demand That Donald Sterling Sell The LA Clippers Is Not So Simplehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenh...nald-sterling-sell-clippers-is-not-so-simple/http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenh...nald-sterling-sell-clippers-is-not-so-simple/

Once Silver concluded his statement he was asked what specific power in the NBA’s Constitution and By-Laws will allow the league to force a sale of the Clippers. Silver’s response was that he will let the lawyers handle that, additionally stating, “Let’s just leave it that we have the authority to act as I’ve recommended.”

That does not mean Sterling will drift away without a fight. In fact, it may not be as easy as Silver says to part Sterling from the Clippers.
-------
Subsection (d) allows the Commissioner to suspend or fine an owner for being found guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the NBA. The “morals clause” was broadly written in a purposeful manner to provide extensive Commissioner power in the instance wherein it would be proper for the Commissioner to institute a penalty. Donald Sterling’s commentary is a perfect example of when the clause may be invoked. However, that subsection is specifically limited to suspensions and/or fines capped at $1 million. It is hard to believe that the termination provision found in Article 13(a) may be applied based on the limitation.

The only other seemingly applicable provision within the NBA’s Constitution and By-Laws to force termination of Donald Sterling’s ownership is Article 24(l). The clause contained therein creates an even larger carve-out than the aforesaid Article 35(A)(d). It states,

​

The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000. (emphasis added)​

Again, it appears that there is a fixed penalty under Article 35(A)(d). Thus, the first sentence of Article 24(l) may not be applicable if Sterling is forced to sell his interest in the Los Angeles Clippers due to conduct that is determined to be prejudicial or detrimental to the NBA. Is the Sterling situation one that is not covered in the NBA’s Constitution and By-Laws, and thus Commissioner Silver may impose a penalty that is as harsh as forcing Sterling to divulge his ownership interest, simply because it is in the best interests of the Association? If so, then I am not as confident as Silver that he would have the authority to act as he has recommended.

Neither am I. He has exceeded his authority. He believes Sterling is in such a bad light right now he can be bullied out of the NBA. He may be right, and Sterling may be perfectly happy to make a 50-fold return on his investment from 33 years ago and quietly disappear from the league. But Silver doesn't have any authority under NBA bylaws and the league constitution to force him out. He can reprimand him, fine him, and perhaps even ban him from direct participation in team operations and league activities. But even that is questionable.

This still doesn't address that all this brouhaha, the media feeding frenzy, and the NBA gross overreaction is based on an illegally obtained conversation in which, as Ann pointed out, the gold digging tramp who seduced the old idiot also egged on his reaction and then released it to the public. Under California law, she illegally recorded the conversation, because she didn't inform him and get his consent to record it. That tenet of law has been established repeatedly in the California courts and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The courts will have to decide, if Sterling wants to challenge the NBA, if the league can act on illegally obtained information that, had the woman acted properly, would never have been known publicly.

Personally, I think Sterling's a pig. What concerns me is that no one these days has any concern or concept of legal and proper. Everything is being done by the PC police, or by "my phone and my pen." It's a bad trend.

 

[InTheLight]

Yup. Too bad being an alleged racist is worse than being a known slumlord.

I think it's more a case of there was no one that could do anything about his past miscues. But here comes the NBA and here's Sterling with a contract with the NBA and the NBA can enforce and punish him. It's really as simple as that.

 

[InTheLight]

I did. Found this. Silver's on thin ice, and the temperature is about 45 degrees. He has exceeded his authority. He believes Sterling is in such a bad light right now he can be bullied out of the NBA. He may be right, and Sterling may be perfectly happy to make a 50-fold return on his investment from 33 years ago. But Silver doesn't have any authority under NBA bylaws and the league constitution to force him out. He can reprimand him, fine him, and perhaps even ban him from direct participation in team operations and league activities. But even that is questionable.

Silver's got the owners votes lined. Sterling will be a pariah in the NBA. No owner will cozy up to him. No owner will do a trade with him. He's toast. He'd be a fool to challenge Silver's authority in court. He'd be a fool to challenge the release of the audio tape.

You are splitting hairs on a potential legal ruling involving a private corporation in an industry you have scant knowledge of based on an internet article.

[Side note: Sterling.....Silver....odd, that.]

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Silver's got the owners votes lined.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that just yet.

Sterling will be a pariah in the NBA. No owner will cozy up to him. No owner will do a trade with him. He's toast. He'd be a fool to challenge Silver's authority in court. He'd be a fool to challenge the release of the audio tape.

I'm sure all that's true, but does that justify acting on illegally obtained information on what is essentially a privately held opinion that, without illegal activity, would still be private?

You are splitting hairs on a potential legal ruling involving a private corporation in an industry you have scant knowledge of based on an internet article.

Hardly. This is solidly established California law. It is inviolable, having repeatedly been upheld in numerous court cases in the state and reaffirmed in nearly half of them before SCOTUS. I'm somewhat disappointed that you would disparage something so basic as free speech. That's why the "all consent" law exists, to protect free speech rights.

And maybe you ought to read the Forbes article in it's entirety. That writer does know the facts, and is equally doubtful of the NBA's ability to have a legal leg to stand on.

 

[Gina B]

Precisely. I am shocked at the level of misinformation being doled out in this thread. Every time a business fires a person over something the person said, people start yelling about freedom of speech being violated and censorship. Not so.

Google Al Campanis. Google Paula Deen. Don Imus. Jimmy the Greek. etc. etc.

There is a "Best interest of the game clause" which is an open ended clause giving the commissioner broad disciplinary powers. Google NBA constitution article 24 (l).

Good point. A lot of us probably have jobs where what we do in our off time can mean we get fired, because we're expected to maintain standards of character. So while it may not be considered illegal, no affairs, no idiocy, no being someone that doesn't accurately represent the title you hold, whether you're physically standing there or not. If you can't do that, don't have that position as part of your life. Expect to lose it, either by being fired or pressure to leave. A moment of mild stupidity is one thing, but if it's a repeated problem...and sometimes if you're in a major position, even one indiscretion can have major impact. If you lied or misrepresented yourself, you'll be lucky if you don't owe back the people you lied to/misled, or worse. (unless you're in politics, huh?)

Though, since I think he did have an expectation of privacy in this exact conversation, I'd like to see that aspect of things dealt with. Not for his sake, but because it appears she had no heroic intentions. If she did, I'd have no problems saying "blur the lines on the law, this was an exceptional circumstance and she had no other way to obtain the sorely needed information," but that appears to not be the case. Selfish motivation vs heroic intention - big difference.

 

[Zaac]

Prelude. Sitting the stage to make hate speech legislation acceptable to the sheep. Heck, several of the girls here already are all for laws to shield The Chosen from any criticism.

We've already got hate speech legislation. It's a very stupid legislation nonetheless. So what is the stage being set for?

 

[kyredneck]

Exactly what is this existing hate speech legislation that you are referring to?

 

[Zaac]

I find it very interesting that after years and years, and tons of public documentation about the subtle racist views of this man, that suddenly, every player, the NBA, the POTUS, the fans, and the country along with the media fanning the flames, jumped on the band wagon to take action against this man!

Could it be as much out of embarrassment as it is an outrage that most folks are reacting to this story? Could it be that after years of smoozing and partying and socializing with Sterling, those who rubbed shoulders with the man are now embarrassed and in need of jumping from a sinking ship?

I think a lot of what people are reacting to is from utter shame and embarrassment for hanging with the guy, and the need to now make their outrage known!

So what do you think ... outrage, embarrassment or maybe a little of both with some over reaction thrown in order to balance the scales? :type:

RD2, I think you are absolutely correct. The things that I have read seem to indicate that the NBA establishment (including players, coaches, owners and right up to the former commish) were well aware of this man's prejudices. No one ever seemed to want to address them because most of them weren't directly related to his business in/with the NBA.

The current comments were. David Stern,the previous commissioner, probably didn't address a lot of the stuff because it wasn't directly related to his NBA operations.

You know how folks will just tolerate people and things simply because they run in the same circles. They will be cordial but they don't really consider themselves friends? That's what seems to be the case with a lot of folks and Sterling. They tolerated him but they kept him at arms length just in case.

 

[Zaac]

Exactly what is this existing hate speech legislation that you are referring to?

The existing Hate Crime Laws tend to cover hate speech. A large number of states, municipalities, etc, have statutes that allow you to punish someone more severely based upon what they have said if it is perceived as hate speech. It's how judges have gotten around SCOTUS rulings. They won't come right out most of the time and say that race, gender, sexual orientation were a factor in the excessive punishment rulings, but it's obvious that people's thoughts or how they felt about someone has also been judged.

 

[exscentric]

The first call for him to sell the team I saw was from Magic Johnson. He seemed really ticked off at the time. Then came the information that the taped conversation was around a pic of the girl friend with Magic. Then couple days later Yahoo news mentioned that Magic now wanted to buy the clippers. Wow. I hate it when things line up like that. Just now wondering who set up and made the tape magically appear public. Just sayin.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The first call for him to sell the team I saw was from Magic Johnson. He seemed really ticked off at the time. Then came the information that the taped conversation was around a pic of the girl friend with Magic. Then couple days later Yahoo news mentioned that Magic now wanted to buy the clippers. Wow. I hate it when things line up like that. Just now wondering who set up and made the tape magically appear public. Just sayin.

Yeah, I thought of that this morning, too. Gee, wonder what the agenda here really is? <-- rhetorical question.

 

[exscentric]

Speaking of Magic - is there a spring house cleaning coming at the NBA? "While We’re On The Subject, The Orlando Magic’s Owner Is Vehemently Opposed To Gay Rights…" http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/while...cs-owner-is-vehemently-opposed-to-gay-rights/

 

[exscentric]

A hospital is giving the Sterling trust 3 million dollar grant back due to his terrible racism. Wonder if the righteous shirt turning Clipper players will reject further pay checks till he is removed from ownership.

 

[Salty]

Zaac said "This BUSINESS has determined that Donald Sterling is bad for the company, and is forcing him out. "


and that is absoutley true - if the NBA did not dish out the "death penalty" the NAACP and other such groups would start prtesting and boycotting NBA games.

Will the owners vote Sterling out? Depends - will it be a secret vote - or will individual votes be made public?

Now, what will the NBA do in the event of a serious situation?

 

[Zaac]

Zaac said "This BUSINESS has determined that Donald Sterling is bad for the company, and is forcing him out. "


and that is absoutley true - if the NBA did not dish out the "death penalty" the NAACP and other such groups would start prtesting and boycotting NBA games.

Will the owners vote Sterling out? Depends - will it be a secret vote - or will individual votes be made public?

Now, what will the NBA do in the event of a serious situation?

Salty, they almost have to at this point. Anything less than him selling the team at this point or it being taken from him and sold is going to trigger boycotts of the NBA brand. They are in the middle of the playoffs. The last thing they want is for NBA sponsors and audiences to fall off because of one guy's statements, no matter how they were obtained.

No one will want to be associated with him. His star players will ask to be released and it will be granted. If players from other teams decide that they aren't playing against his team until he sells, then he runs the risk of a reasonably profitable team being run back into the ground.

 

[Salty]

Salty, they almost have to at this point. Anything less than him selling the team at this point or it being taken from him and sold is going to trigger boycotts of the NBA brand. They are in the middle of the playoffs. The last thing they want is for NBA sponsors and audiences to fall off because of one guy's statements, no matter how they were obtained.

No one will want to be associated with him. His star players will ask to be released and it will be granted. If players from other teams decide that they aren't playing against his team until he sells, then he runs the risk of a reasonably profitable team being run back into the ground.

and all you listed is OVER-REACTION!!! You would think that this guy assulted his wife or something - but that is okay.

Granted, what he said was DUMB- but total banishment - simply uncalled for.

 

[annsni]

Interestingly enough, a black man can wear jewelry that represents an organization that says white men are devils. That's not racism at all.

http://nypost.com/2014/04/06/jay-zs-medallion-bears-logo-of-five-percent-radical-group/

 

[Salty]

Interestingly enough, a black man can wear jewelry that represents an organization that says white men are devils. That's not racism at all.

http://nypost.com/2014/04/06/jay-zs-medallion-bears-logo-of-five-percent-radical-group/

Of course not.

Martin Luther King said: "I refuse to accept, that, we cannot All just get along."

The Problem is that some want to get along - as long as its on their terms.

 

[Zaac]

and all you listed is OVER-REACTION!!! You would think that this guy assulted his wife or something - but that is okay.

Granted, what he said was DUMB- but total banishment - simply uncalled for.

It may seem like an overreaction to non-Blacks, but his tone harkens back to days that White America likes to say to Blacks is long past so they should stop complaining.

Him running that team is the equivalent of a slave master running a plantation. And that seems to be reinforced by new revelations that seem to keep coming forward.

The revelations about Donald Sterling get more and more sensational by the minute. According to Adrian Wojnarowksi of Yahoo Sports, Sterling almost vetoed the deal that brought J.J. Redick to the Clippers, because he didn’t believe that the white Reddick was worth $7 million a season. Mostly, he’s never loved paying white players. In that way, he has an absolute plantation prism with which he sees players: He always preferred long, strong, physical players. To him, that’s a basketball player: Big, black and strong. When Sterling became reluctant to honor Rivers’ sign-and-trade agreement for J.J. Redick, there was a belief race played a factor. As one league source said, “He thought it was too much to pay for a white player.” Yes, Sterling didn’t want to so easily part with Eric Bledsoe, despite Rivers telling him they could never afford to pay Bledsoe in restricted free agency next summer. That was part of it, yes, but those who knew Sterling – who had history with him – believed

Sounds like the same mentality the plantation slave owners had. Fill the plantation with big, strong, athletic Black men to do the work. I'm not saying it's the case, but it's an amazing coincidence that folks attached that to his not wanting a white player.