Donald Sterling receives lifetime ban from NBA

[Lukus Alderman]

I saw one poll, perhaps ESPN, that gave choices of 1) punishment too much, 2) punishment just right, 3) punishment not enough?

At the time I saw it, approximately 5% had voted not enough. I laughed, and not because I disagree with the punishment, I do. The man is every vile thing that I can think of. He has no moral compass, but seriously what else can the NBA do? Prison is not on the table.

The NBA took a stand, and a very clear one. He is to be stripped of the team that he owned. He is to be shunned. He doesn't have the qualifications to be one of them.

Yeah...sounds like the league did all they could legally do.

 

[BudreauReye]

the lord does indeed moveth upon mysterious ways.  mr. sterling, is now (80+ years old)  it's time to move away from the dark side of life.

Time for us, but not for him.

 

[java]

I doubt any owners will be spouting off without thinking anytime soon. He is an "idoit".

 

[streettopeschel]

I doubt any owners will be spouting off without thinking anytime soon. He is an "idoit".

owners are just people, too. we ALL spout off and there's not a one of us who hasn't said something that would get us in trouble. 

The key is don't do it in front of a gold-digging skank with an electronic device pressed on 'record'. i always insist my gold-digging skanks check all such devices at the door before we , well...you know.

 

[BudreauReye]

owners are just people, too. we ALL spout off and there's not a one of us who hasn't said something that would get us in trouble. 

The key is don't do it in front of a gold-digging skank with an electronic device pressed on 'record'. i always insist my gold-digging skanks check all such devices at the door before we , well...you know.

I know that you are saying that all of us have said things in private under the influence of ... or, because we were pissed off because so and so said such and such and if they had not done that, I would not have said what I said in the heat of the moment, or some such variation when the door is thought to be well closed.  Well, you see, I have a different take on this.  I think that what we say when "we think the door is thought to be well closed, and well ... you know ...",  I kind of think that those things that we say in those conditions, with those folks behind those closed doors, I kind of think that those thoughts really represent what we really think and represent the way that we really are.  What do you think!

 

[streettopeschel]

I know that you are saying that all of us have said things in private under the influence of ... or, because we were pissed off because so and so said such and such and if they had not done that, I would not have said what I said in the heat of the moment, or some such variation when the door is thought to be well closed.  Well, you see, I have a different take on this.  I think that what we say when "we think the door is thought to be well closed, and well ... you know ...",  I kind of think that those things that we say in those conditions, with those folks behind those closed doors, I kind of think that those thoughts really represent what we really think and represent the way that we really are.  What do you think!

my answer is....sometimes. closed doors or under the influence can lead to the truth...or not depending on motive. in the heat of the moment have you ever said something you didn't really believe but you said it to get a reaction?

nevertheless my guess is sterling DOES think that way as evidenced by previous behavior.

 

[java]

I think several things about this situation:

1. Sterling is a racist and a womanizer. I don't recall much about Ross Perot ( is that the way he spells his name?). See what I mean! However, I do recall a statement he made about marriage. He said that if your spouse could not trust you, then no one else could, because marriage was the most important commitment in a person's life.

2. Yes, I do think people say things in anger they don't mean; however, if they make racist or sexist remarks, that is something I take more seriously.

3. Generally, I believe people of our generation are becoming so sensitive about racism that teenagers literally make a joke of it to watch for our reactions. I have seen them do it. They are much more comfortable with issues of race than we are. That being said, many teens live in a very small world and don't realize that once they venture outside 'their world' people will judge them for their words before they get to know them, and it is smart to be careful with those words.

 

[Juan]

Two Mark Cuban quotes on this topic --

I bolded the part i thought was the money quote.

[The outspoken billionaire said it was a "slippery slope" to suggest that Sterling should be forced out as owner over comments made in the privacy of his home.
 
"What Donald said was wrong. It was abhorrent," Cuban said. "There's no place for racism in the NBA, any business I'm associated with. But at the same time, that's a decision I make. I think you've got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It's a very, very slippery slope."

 
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/mark-cuban-donald-sterling-slippery-slope_n_5229901.html

"In no uncertain terms am I supporting what Donald Sterling said, or his position," Cuban said. "He's obviously racist, he's obviously bigoted. And in this day and age when you're in the public eye you've got to be damn careful -- if that's your position and that's unfortunately where you're at -- you better be damn careful what you say, even in the privacy of your own home.
 
"But regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-mark-cuban-donald-sterling-20140429,0,3329690.story#ixzz30NTcr6va

 

[Coleman Feeley]

[SIZE=medium]I think this punishment is without a doubt fitting of the ‘crime’. I understand that Donald Sterling has the ‘right’ to say whatever he wants and that he believed his conversation was private (when everyone in the country has audio and video recording system in their pocket... nothing is private). However, from a company stand point there was an OWNER of a NBA team saying, essentially on the record…[/SIZE]

1. [SIZE=medium]Racist comments directed towards African Americans (78% of NBA players are African American) [/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=medium]Racist comments directed towards a NBA ‘Hall of Famer’ (who happens to be a NBA commentator and appears on all the ‘talking head’ shows about basketball)[/SIZE]
3. [SIZE=medium]He said all of it TO HIS MISSTRESS[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]…not a good look.[/SIZE]

 

[Juan]

Do you think Sterling's wife should be divested of her half of the team too?

(Based on the idea that Calif is a community property state and half is hers - this may be wrong, it might be held in a trust or partnership, I really have no idea.  Just posing the question)

 

[Randolph Duke]

[SIZE=medium]I think this punishment is without a doubt fitting of the ‘crime’. I understand that Donald Sterling has the ‘right’ to say whatever he wants and that he believed his conversation was private (when everyone in the country has audio and video recording system in their pocket... nothing is private). However, from a company stand point there was an OWNER of a NBA team saying, essentially on the record…[/SIZE]

1. [SIZE=medium]Racist comments directed towards African Americans (78% of NBA players are African American) [/SIZE]
2. [SIZE=medium]Racist comments directed towards a NBA ‘Hall of Famer’ (who happens to be a NBA commentator and appears on all the ‘talking head’ shows about basketball)[/SIZE]
3. [SIZE=medium]He said all of it TO HIS MISSTRESS[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]…not a good look.[/SIZE]

The fact that he is an owner isn't the most important point here. What is important is that he was associated with the NBA and what he did was detrimental to the league. 

The most interesting point about this is going to be that saying racist comments is now de facto "detrimental to the league" even if the comments were spoken in private and regardless of the time that has past since they comments were spoken. 

One question - How many players do you think have ever uttered a racist comment in public or in private? If a racially offensive comment is in and or itself offensive and deserving of banning the person who uttered it from the league, the same standard has to be applied to players. Every player who can be shown to have uttered a racially statement in  private arguably should be banned from the NBA and their careers terminated. 

If this gets litigated, don't doubt for a second the argument of universal application will be argued by Sterling's attorneys. Any owner who can be shown to have ever uttered a racially offensive statement in private will have to recuse themself from voting to sanction Sterling. Depositions in any litigation are going to rip the league to pieces. 

 

[java]

Duke, i am not an attorney, but I think that if this is litigated, the description you gave is accurate. The court of public opinion is very different. I wonder what he will do. The other piece of the puzzle is his wife, she is in a bad situation.

It could be argued that if he litigates this, and loses sponsors in the process, he devalued a community asset, could it not? She must be weighing her options. I don't see how he wins through litigation, if it's a community asset.

 

[Randolph Duke]

If he sells, he gets close to $1b. His basis is $12m, so almost all will be taxable at the cap gains rate. If he keeps it until he dies, his heirs inherit and their basis will be the value at the time they received it (roughly $1b). That saves the family around $350mil in taxes, which is serious money. He obviously has reasons not to sell.

His wife is a minor issue. I don't know whether the team is a community asset. If it is, she is entitled to half his interest but he wouldn't he entitled to an ownership interest unless she is approved by the other owners, which seems unlikely.

If the league forces a sale, all hell probably breaks loose. Sterling will probably sue the league and the new owners. There is a question whether his comments would diminish the value of the franchise or if a forced sale would diminish the value of the franchise. If litigation shows the forced sale diminished the value, Sterling could claim treble damages. The litigation would open all sorts of ugly arguments, including asking black players, under oath, if they have ever said a racially insensitive comment in private against whites. That would be ugly, especially if saying yes would cost the player tens (if not hundreds) of millions and saying no might land them in prison. Friends of players could blackmail players if they know announcing the player said racially insensitive comments could force the league to ban them. Even more interesting is a black white player possibly getting banned for using the word ni**er or fa**ot.

My guess is the league tries to force a sale, Sterling gets an injunction to stop it and then the fun begins.

 

[streettopeschel]

The fact that he is an owner isn't the most important point here. What is important is that he was associated with the NBA and what he did was detrimental to the league. 

The most interesting point about this is going to be that saying racist comments is now de facto "detrimental to the league" even if the comments were spoken in private and regardless of the time that has past since they comments were spoken. 

One question - How many players do you think have ever uttered a racist comment in public or in private? If a racially offensive comment is in and or itself offensive and deserving of banning the person who uttered it from the league, the same standard has to be applied to players. Every player who can be shown to have uttered a racially statement in  private arguably should be banned from the NBA and their careers terminated. 

If this gets litigated, don't doubt for a second the argument of universal application will be argued by Sterling's attorneys. Any owner who can be shown to have ever uttered a racially offensive statement in private will have to recuse themself from voting to sanction Sterling. Depositions in any litigation are going to rip the league to pieces. 

i don't care what silver said in his presser,  i have to think sterling's past discrimination problems with his real estate holdings was a factor in his ban. if he had been a model owner with a perfect rep (think the rooneys in the nfl) maybe a suspension/fine would have sufficed. sterling had no such goodwill in reserve.

re players conduct...owners should be held to a higher standard. and from a business standpoint, sponsors don't jump ship when player says something stupid. they were jumping like rats about sterling.

 

[Randolph Duke]

But the sanction was for conduct detrimental to the league. One would have to argue racially insensitive comments said in a private conversation are either categorically unacceptable or they are not categorically unacceptable. The argument being made is the are never acceptable. I would love to be the attorney opposing counsel who is trying to explain how a statement said by an owner in private is odious, but if said by a team employee is just "boys being boys" and no big deal.

The difference is how the league rules provide for punishing the transgressor. Obviously, the commissioner believes such statements are deserving of the maximum applicable punishment. If it applies to owners, it applies to league employees and team employees.

Had the commissioner banned Sterling for a few years, everyone would have been better served. Ticket sales would have dropped, sponsors would have fled and players would have refused to sign with them without being pariahs. That would have forced Sterling to do something and the league wouldn't have been responsible for any diminution of value.

 

[streettopeschel]

ticket sales dropping, sponsors fleeing and players refusing to sign over the course of a multi-year suspension with no foreseable   resolution wouldn't have resulted in a diminution of value? not following that at all. not to mention most reports indicate a player revolt in the form of boycotts was looming if anything short of an immediate ban occurred.

the legal battle ain't over but the PR battle is and the league won in a rout. the threat of a player boycott was real. no options here.

 

 

[Randolph Duke]

The commissioner fed the mob, but did he do what was in the long term interests of the league? The players were never going to refuse to play. If they had, the league would have had to penalize them and it would have cost them a lot of money.

The league has a huge problem here. They have made making racially insensitive statements in private an offense that is detrimental to the interests of the league and punishable by banishment from the league. The league now has to universally enforce that standard across the league on all owners, all players and all employees. How many do you think have ever said racially insensitive comments in private? Imagine the article when someone comes out saying Lebron, Michael Jordan or Charles Barkley ever uttered a racially insensitive statement in public. I would hazard a guess a lot of NBA employees and players have made such comments. The commissioner now gets to explain how the word "ni**er" isn't racially insensitive in certain contexts and gets to publish rules when it can and can't be used.

Being the police of private statements is a no win position for the commissioner of the NBA. If the rule is enforced against one owner, it has to be enforced against all owners. Then against all players. The commissioner needs to find and out and he needs one quickly. Otherwise, Sterling is going to make discovery during litigation very ugly.

 

[MikeV73]

Probably overstepping legally but a PR move on his part. ..

Wonder if Larry Johnson gets hit with anything or

if his racist comments are acceptable?

We talking grandmama? What did LJ have to say recently?

 

[chilly52]

There is a code of conduct in the owner agreements in the NBA! Reminds me of Marge Schott a few years back with the NFL. She thought she could say and do whatever she wanted too.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Obviously there are a number of codes in play. Our discussion seems to have been deemed offensive by the board of censors.

I haven't seen any code of conduct documents so I'm not sure exactly what the documents say. The issue isn't what conduct is allowed, the issue is what penalties can be imposed for violating rules. If a racially offensive comment in a private conversation can force the sale of a franchise, it surely can cause a player to also be banned from the league.