QuoteNBA Probes L.A. Clippers Owner Over Racist Recording
The National Basketball Association is investigating an audio recording which purports to show Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling making racist remarks to his mixed-race girlfriend.
TMZ posted an audio clip Friday of a conversation allegedly between Sterling and girlfriend V. Stiviano, who is black and Mexican. In the clip, the individual identified as Sterling says "not to bring [black people] to my games" and chastises her for taking an Instagram picture with Magic Johnson, which has since been deleted.
"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to?" the man in the recording says. "You can sleep with [them]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games."
TMZ attempted to contact Sterling for comment, but received no response.
"We are in the process of conducting a full investigation into the audio recording obtained by TMZ," NBA spokesman Mike Bass told ESPN in a statement. "The remarks heard on the recording are disturbing and offensive, but at this time we have no further information."
http://time.com/78189/donald-sterling-racist-recording/
Sterling is getting a lot of criticism right now. But I want to point something that the media isn't focusing nearly enough on: he tells his girlfriend she can sleep with black people.
Now in normal relationships, you can take pictures with minorities, but you aren't allowed to sleep with them. The opposite seemed to be functioning in Sterling's relationship. But which restriction would you prefer your significant other to impose on you? So I ask you this, who is the real racist, Donald Sterling, or the rest of us?
[okay, so Donald Sterling, but I still think this part of the story needs to be talked about :)]
I say Reverand Al and Jesse take him for 40 mill.
Failing to see the wood for the trees:
What does his girlfriend look like.
Hasn't he been a well known racist for decades?
Haven't his buisness been sued for discrimination multiple times?
Quote from: mongers on April 27, 2014, 08:51:52 PM
Failing to see the wood for the trees:
What does his girlfriend look like.
She is attractive. Also black / mexican.
He is 80 something, and looks like he might be pregnant.
Quote from: mongers on April 27, 2014, 08:51:52 PM
Failing to see the wood for the trees:
What does his girlfriend look like.
The couple...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.philly.com%2Fimages%2F20140426-steling-Stiviano.jpg&hash=96e6d2d2d77550b6dc6ee763aacbef317da39c27)
Yikes
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2014, 08:51:10 PM
I say Reverand Al and Jesse take him for 40 mill.
Now why you gotta go bring politics into it?
Anyone that is surprised by Sterling being a racist just hasn't been paying attention.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2014, 09:15:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2014, 08:51:10 PM
I say Reverand Al and Jesse take him for 40 mill.
Now why you gotta go bring politics into it?
:lol:
QuoteThe National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People announced Sunday that Donald Sterling will not receive an honor amid controversy over a recording said to be of the Clippers team owner making racist remarks.
The Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP had been scheduled to give Sterling the group's lifetime achievement award at its May 15 banquet. "He is not receiving a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP," Lorraine Miller, NAACP interim vice president, told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Also, on Twitter, the NAACP announced Sterling "will not be receiving a lifetime achievement award from the LA Branch of the NAACP."
At the banquet, the NAACP chapter also planned to give its first "person of the year" awards to L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti and the Rev. Al Sharpton, according to the organization's website.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-naacp-donald-sterling-award-racist-tape-controversy-20140427,0,2263229.story
He's a kook.
From a deposition a few years back.
lol, Mr. Koon. You just can't make this up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 27, 2014, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2014, 09:15:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2014, 08:51:10 PM
I say Reverand Al and Jesse take him for 40 mill.
Now why you gotta go bring politics into it?
:lol:
QuoteThe National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People announced Sunday that Donald Sterling will not receive an honor amid controversy over a recording said to be of the Clippers team owner making racist remarks.
The Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP had been scheduled to give Sterling the group's lifetime achievement award at its May 15 banquet. "He is not receiving a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP," Lorraine Miller, NAACP interim vice president, told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Also, on Twitter, the NAACP announced Sterling "will not be receiving a lifetime achievement award from the LA Branch of the NAACP."
At the banquet, the NAACP chapter also planned to give its first "person of the year" awards to L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti and the Rev. Al Sharpton, according to the organization's website.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-naacp-donald-sterling-award-racist-tape-controversy-20140427,0,2263229.story (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-naacp-donald-sterling-award-racist-tape-controversy-20140427,0,2263229.story)
Yeah, I saw an article in the National Review where they doing a some victory laps where finally someone turned out to be a racist wasn't a Republican.
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2014, 10:14:34 PM
Anyone that is surprised by Sterling being a racist just hasn't been paying attention.
The NAACP was shocked and amazed.
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2014, 10:14:34 PM
Anyone that is surprised by Sterling being a racist just hasn't been paying attention.
I sure hadn't been. I had never even heard of him until this controversy. I mean, of course I knew that
somebody owned the Clippers, but I had no idea who.
Wait, the NAACP was intending to give an award to Sterling? :huh:
What struck me most about the articles about this in the Danish papers was that they wrote he owned one of the best basketball teams in America. Admittedly, I haven't been paying much attention to NBA since EA's NBA Live '98, but surely not.
Quote from: Liep on April 28, 2014, 04:17:38 AM
What struck me most about the articles about this in the Danish papers was that they wrote he owned one of the best basketball teams in America. Admittedly, I haven't been paying much attention to NBA since EA's NBA Live '98, but surely not.
After 30 years of failure, things finally went the Clippers way in 2011 and they managed to trade for Chris Paul, the best point guard in the NBA (after his trade to the Lakers was controversially shot down by commissioner David Stern). Him and 2009 first pick of the draft Blake Griffin have anchored a fantastically entertaining uptempo team. This year they got NBA championship coach Doc Rivers at the helm. They won 57 games and are the 3rd seed in the west.
Quote from: Liep on April 28, 2014, 04:17:38 AM
What struck me most about the articles about this in the Danish papers was that they wrote he owned one of the best basketball teams in America. Admittedly, I haven't been paying much attention to NBA since EA's NBA Live '98, but surely not.
He owns the 30th-best NBA team in North America (29th-best in the US). The clipper did manage to win 50 games for the first time in history last year, but even with winning records in the last three years they probably don't have more than a half-dozen winning seasons in their history.
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2014, 10:14:34 PM
Anyone that is surprised by Sterling being a racist just hasn't been paying attention.
But it just doesn't make sense why he would want to own an NBA team. NBA teams are mostly black. Why would a racist want to own a bunch of black guys?
OH GOD IT MAKES SENSE NOW.
:lol:
I'm sure Cliven Bundy will approve.
Quote from: katmai on April 27, 2014, 10:20:12 PM
He's a kook.
From a deposition a few years back.
:lol:
Okay, that was fucking funny. :D
Sponsers are bailing from the Clippers en masse over this. I think the NBA will probably do it's best to make owning the team very uncomfortable for him without actually kicking him out themselves, in the hope that he'll choose to sell rather than struggle on.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/28/us/clippers-sterling-scandal/
Quote...Speculation on possible punitive actions
Silver has promised the league would give Sterling due process but would act quickly.
It is unclear whether Silver could order Sterling to sell the Clippers, a team he bought for $12 million in 1981 and is now worth $575 million, according to Forbes magazine. A lifetime suspension and fine of at least $1 million is more likely, experts say.
The commissioner might announce an indefinite suspension while the investigation continues, CNN's Rachel Nichols reported.
"He (eventually) could suspend Donald Sterling maybe for a year, maybe even two years or even indefinitely," Nichols said. "And the idea and the hope would be that if he made him so uncomfortable, if he was removed from day-to-day operations, if sponsors are pulling out the way that they are, there would be some way to convince Sterling, it's in your best interest and the interest of everyone else to sell the team."
Nichols likened the situation to the late Marge Schott, who owned the Cincinnati Reds and made racist and other insensitive comments. She was suspended twice, the second time in 1996, and sold the team in 1999.
Other NBA owners have called the remarks attributed to Sterling "abhorrent," "reprehensible," "hurtful," and said they have no place in the league or anywhere in society.
And they all said they have confidence Silver will handle the matter well.
Charlotte Bobcats owner and Hall of Fame Michael Jordan made a rare public statement on a controversial subject.
"As an owner, I'm obviously disgusted that a fellow team owner could hold such sickening and offensive views," he said. "As a former player, I'm completely outraged. There is no room in the NBA -- or anywhere else -- for the kind of racism and hatred that Mr. Sterling allegedly expressed."
...
Sponsors leave in droves
Twelve Clippers sponsors have taken action. State Farm, Virgin America, CarMax, Red Bull were among companies to pull sponsorships, at least temporarily, CNN Money reported.
Sterling was to receive a lifetime achievement award at an event next month to mark the 100th anniversary of the Los Angeles NAACP, but the national organization said Monday that would not happen.
Sterling had been given a lifetime achievement award from the organization in 2009, according to a brochure obtained by CNN.
Roeser, the Clippers' president, suggested Saturday that Stiviano -- whom he didn't mention by name -- was "getting even" with Sterling over a lawsuit.
Rochelle Sterling filed a lawsuit last month against Stiviano, who she said was having an affair with her husband.
In the complaint, Rochelle Sterling accuses Stiviano of targeting extremely wealthy older men. The suit claims that Donald Sterling used the couple's money to buy Stiviano a Ferrari, two Bentleys and a Range Rover and that Stiviano took possession of a $1.8 million duplex through fraud. Sterling also gave her nearly $250,000 in cash, the court document says.
Stiviano countered in another court document that there was nothing wrong with Donald Sterling giving her gifts and that she never took advantage of the Clippers owner, who made much of his fortune in real estate.
Speaking about the recording, Roeser said, "We do not know if it is legitimate or it has been altered. We do know that the woman on the tape -- who we believe released it to TMZ -- is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would 'get even.' "
Man they are really piling on now :lol:
I don't think hating Sterling is a new phonemona
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sterling-clippers-plaschke-20140427,0,7545973.column#ixzz30FoVlP9L
Quote
...The biggest negative effect of Sterling's recent behavior isn't something the Clippers will feel this weekend, or even this spring, but something that has affected them for much of his 30 years in Los Angeles.
Their recent successes have generated little buzz, their players are booed when shown on the video board at Dodger Stadium, it seems like most folks in town are actually cheering against them . . . because, down deep, nobody can stomach the idea of a successful Donald Sterling.
They will never be fully respected in Los Angeles because of their owner. They will never be seen as worthy competitors of the Lakers because of their owner. Despite spending millions to make the Clippers competitive, and despite that team filling Staples Center with perhaps the most diverse sports audience in Los Angeles, Sterling has never been able to make them fully embraceable because it is nearly impossible to cheer for him.
In the rant released late Friday night, Donald Sterling purportedly begs his friend not to bring African Americans to Clippers games.
Here's hoping, finally, that the NBA agrees it is Donald Sterling who needs to stay away from Clippers games.
Apparently the NBA is suspending him for life and will try to force him to sell the team. In an ironic twist, the main candidate to buy the Clippers is Magic Johnson.
He bought the team for $15 million in 1981. He is gonna be able to sell the team for probably $750 million. Not a bad way to get kicked out of the club.
Quote from: sbr on April 29, 2014, 01:43:55 PM
He bought the team for $15 million in 1981. He is gonna be able to sell the team for probably $750 million. Not a bad way to get kicked out of the club.
Won't he be dead soon anyway?
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2014, 02:46:57 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 29, 2014, 01:43:55 PM
He bought the team for $15 million in 1981. He is gonna be able to sell the team for probably $750 million. Not a bad way to get kicked out of the club.
Won't he be dead soon anyway?
Well, someone sure hopes so.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 27, 2014, 09:31:37 PM
I think she's cute.
She looks weird. Her facial features frighten and confuse me.
Quote from: garbon on April 29, 2014, 02:46:57 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 29, 2014, 01:43:55 PM
He bought the team for $15 million in 1981. He is gonna be able to sell the team for probably $750 million. Not a bad way to get kicked out of the club.
Won't he be dead soon anyway?
Not if the baths in virgin's blood have their intended effect ... : Báthory:
Quote from: The Larch on April 29, 2014, 01:36:46 PM
Apparently the NBA is suspending him for life and will try to force him to sell the team. In an ironic twist, the main candidate to buy the Clippers is Magic Johnson.
Man that is extreme. I guess image control and all that.
Quote from: sbr on April 29, 2014, 01:43:55 PM
He bought the team for $15 million in 1981. He is gonna be able to sell the team for probably $750 million. Not a bad way to get kicked out of the club.
All the people suing him are going to be rich!
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 10:04:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
:rolleyes:
Hey, take it up with Larry Johnson, not me.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
Don't listen to Grandma. This is not the first time he has said something like this btw. He said the Knicks were like slaves or something during the NBA finals against the Spurs, I don't know what that shit was about. He is kind of an idiot.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
Just like the NHL isn't all white, Yes.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 10:01:33 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 29, 2014, 01:36:46 PM
Apparently the NBA is suspending him for life and will try to force him to sell the team. In an ironic twist, the main candidate to buy the Clippers is Magic Johnson.
Man that is extreme. I guess image control and all that.
It will depend on a vote by the owners now, if 3/4 are ok, he'll be kicked out and forced to sell.
Quote from: The Larch on April 30, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
It will depend on a vote by the owners now, if 3/4 are ok, he'll be kicked out and forced to sell.
Normally owners take care of their own like nobody's business. It will be interesting to see what they do with such a PR shitshow.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 11:06:41 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 30, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
It will depend on a vote by the owners now, if 3/4 are ok, he'll be kicked out and forced to sell.
Normally owners take care of their own like nobody's business. It will be interesting to see what they do with such a PR shitshow.
Apparently they're more than willing to show Sterling the door, as he has been a league pariah for years already.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 10:04:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
:rolleyes:
Hey, take it up with Larry Johnson, not me.
:huh: Shouldn't
you be the one taking it up with Larry Johnson? You two are the only people who seem to want one.
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 11:17:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 10:04:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
:rolleyes:
Hey, take it up with Larry Johnson, not me.
:huh: Shouldn't you be the one taking it up with Larry Johnson? You two are the only people who seem to want one.
Did I say I wanted one, grumblies?
Quote from: The Larch on April 30, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
It will depend on a vote by the owners now, if 3/4 are ok, he'll be kicked out and forced to sell.
Supposedly the league constitution has that clause, but the use of it is limited to whether the team is in financial trouble or if there is game fixing / gambling.
On the radio they were saying he might be able to sue to block this and still keep the team. I'm not sure why he would want to though. He is going to be persona non grata, and no one will want to play or coach for him.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2014, 11:39:37 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 30, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
It will depend on a vote by the owners now, if 3/4 are ok, he'll be kicked out and forced to sell.
Supposedly the league constitution has that clause, but the use of it is limited to whether the team is in financial trouble or if there is game fixing / gambling.
On the radio they were saying he might be able to sue to block this and still keep the team. I'm not sure why he would want to though. He is going to be persona non grata, and no one will want to play or coach for him.
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
And it's the Clippers. Recent success notwithstanding, they've been terrible for decades. Yet they've always managed to hire someone, and the draft ensures he'll always have the rights to some players.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2014, 11:39:37 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 30, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
It will depend on a vote by the owners now, if 3/4 are ok, he'll be kicked out and forced to sell.
Supposedly the league constitution has that clause, but the use of it is limited to whether the team is in financial trouble or if there is game fixing / gambling.
On the radio they were saying he might be able to sue to block this and still keep the team. I'm not sure why he would want to though. He is going to be persona non grata, and no one will want to play or coach for him.
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
And it's the Clippers. Recent success notwithstanding, they've been terrible for decades. Yet they've always managed to hire someone, and the draft ensures he'll always have the rights to some players.
Another possible sanction is forfeiting their draft rights. And sponsors started leaving en masse when the whole controversy exploded. It'd be totally counter intuitive to hold on, but he has been mismanaging the Clippers to the ground for decades already.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
And it's the Clippers. Recent success notwithstanding, they've been terrible for decades. Yet they've always managed to hire someone, and the draft ensures he'll always have the rights to some players.
It is different now though. Players were supposedly talking about a boycott. Not just Clippers players, but all players. No one is going to want to play for him. Sponsors have been pulling out, and the community is not supportive.
The players association isn't going to be okay with what you just mentioned: players that have no interest ever associating with Sterling forced to work for him through the draft or trades.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
:huh:
Why would Sterling want to keep a team that had no fans in the stands, sponsors or players - because that is exactly what would happen if he tried to keep the team.
If he sells now he will get a tidy ROE. He has plenty of movitivation to sell and not sue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
:huh:
Why would Sterling want to keep a team that had no fans in the stands, sponsors or players - because that is exactly what would happen if he tried to keep the team.
If he sells now he will get a tidy ROE. He has plenty of movitivation to sell and not sue.
Dude already has plenty of money. Money isn't the motivation.
But by being an NBA owner he is a member of a very, very exclusive club. That brings him all kinds of influence that money alone can not compare to.
Besides he's sued the league before - and won.
I'm sure that Sterling figures he can "fix" things by giving more money to the NAACP and making a public apology. Fan boycotts tend to be pretty fickle things, as are sponsors.
Whatever influence he might have thought he had by being a member of the club has entirely vanished.
This is from Lester Munson, ESPN Legal Expert. It was on Monday, before the announcement.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling)
QuoteThe alleged racist and misogynist rants of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling will test the leadership of new NBA commissioner Adam Silver. Sterling's apparent misconduct raises legal questions about Silver's authority and possible punishments to be assessed against Sterling:
Q: Can Silver force Sterling to say whether the voice on the tapes is his?
A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 24(m)(ii) of the "constitution" that governs the 30 owners of NBA teams and establishes the authority of the owners' commissioner, Silver can require Sterling to respond under oath to questions. The commissioner has "the right to require testimony and the production of documents and other evidence from any Member." As an owner, Sterling is a "member" of the NBA. Sterling and his lawyers could delay answering questions from Silver, but if Sterling refuses to admit or to deny that it is his voice on the tapes, he is in violation of the constitution and would face termination. He has no protection from the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, because he is not facing any charge of any crime.
Q: What penalties can Silver issue?
A: Under the provisions of the bylaws, Silver has two sets of powers that he may use. Under either, he can issue a lifetime suspension and a substantial fine. Under Paragraph 24(l) of the constitution that was adopted by the NBA owners on Oct. 26, 2005, he can issue a fine of up to $2.5 million, can suspend an owner indefinitely and can order the forfeiture of draft picks. This provision applies to situations that are not covered by specific rules within the constitution. In another provision, Paragraph 35(A)(c), Silver can issue an indefinite suspension and a fine of $1 million to any owner who "makes ... a statement having or designed to have an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball." If Silver wants to hammer Sterling, he can assert that Sterling's statements are so egregious that they go beyond the misconduct contemplated in Paragraph 35 and allow Silver to assess the greater penalties found in Paragraph 24. Sterling can argue that he merely made a statement, but the statement at a minimum allows a lifetime suspension and a $1 million fine.
Q: Is it possible for Silver and the NBA to terminate Sterling's franchise ownership?
A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely." Silver and the owners could assert that Sterling's statements violated the constitution's requirements to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.
Any owner or Silver can initiate the termination procedure with a written charge describing the violation. Sterling would have five days to respond to the charge with a written answer. The commissioner would then schedule a special meeting of the NBA Board of Governors within 10 days. Both sides would have a chance to present their evidence, and then the board would vote. If three-fourths of the board members vote to terminate, then Sterling would face termination of his ownership. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the board to reduce the termination to a fine. Terminating a franchise would obviously be a drastic remedy, but the potential of the termination procedure gives Silver and the other owners vast leverage in any discussion with Sterling about an involuntary sale of his team.
Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?
A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.
My point though is "what does he have to lose"?
Even if he was "only" given a lifetime ban form the game, if he continued to own the team he could ask to have that lifted in a few years. Make the right donations and the right apologies and who knows what might happen.
I wonder what the other owners might think as well. If they go along with this they have just greatly increased the power of their brand new commissioner.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 12:54:43 PM
My point though is "what does he have to lose"?
You must not have read my whole post. He has hundreds of millions of dollars to lose. And for what? To be vilified even more than he is now?
From everything I have heardI would be surprised if the vote isn't 29-0, whenever it happens.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
:huh:
Why would Sterling want to keep a team that had no fans in the stands, sponsors or players - because that is exactly what would happen if he tried to keep the team.
If he sells now he will get a tidy ROE. He has plenty of movitivation to sell and not sue.
Sell, *then* sue. :) Allege that the team was worth more, but for the (alleged) illegal forced sale. No dount the other side will argue that it wasn't, and that in fact selling was the best financial option ...
Quote from: sbr on April 30, 2014, 12:40:45 PM
This is from Lester Munson, ESPN Legal Expert. It was on Monday, before the announcement.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling)
QuoteThe alleged racist and misogynist rants of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling will test the leadership of new NBA commissioner Adam Silver. Sterling's apparent misconduct raises legal questions about Silver's authority and possible punishments to be assessed against Sterling:
Q: Can Silver force Sterling to say whether the voice on the tapes is his?
A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 24(m)(ii) of the "constitution" that governs the 30 owners of NBA teams and establishes the authority of the owners' commissioner, Silver can require Sterling to respond under oath to questions. The commissioner has "the right to require testimony and the production of documents and other evidence from any Member." As an owner, Sterling is a "member" of the NBA. Sterling and his lawyers could delay answering questions from Silver, but if Sterling refuses to admit or to deny that it is his voice on the tapes, he is in violation of the constitution and would face termination. He has no protection from the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, because he is not facing any charge of any crime.
Q: What penalties can Silver issue?
A: Under the provisions of the bylaws, Silver has two sets of powers that he may use. Under either, he can issue a lifetime suspension and a substantial fine. Under Paragraph 24(l) of the constitution that was adopted by the NBA owners on Oct. 26, 2005, he can issue a fine of up to $2.5 million, can suspend an owner indefinitely and can order the forfeiture of draft picks. This provision applies to situations that are not covered by specific rules within the constitution. In another provision, Paragraph 35(A)(c), Silver can issue an indefinite suspension and a fine of $1 million to any owner who "makes ... a statement having or designed to have an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball." If Silver wants to hammer Sterling, he can assert that Sterling's statements are so egregious that they go beyond the misconduct contemplated in Paragraph 35 and allow Silver to assess the greater penalties found in Paragraph 24. Sterling can argue that he merely made a statement, but the statement at a minimum allows a lifetime suspension and a $1 million fine.
Q: Is it possible for Silver and the NBA to terminate Sterling's franchise ownership?
A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely." Silver and the owners could assert that Sterling's statements violated the constitution's requirements to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.
Any owner or Silver can initiate the termination procedure with a written charge describing the violation. Sterling would have five days to respond to the charge with a written answer. The commissioner would then schedule a special meeting of the NBA Board of Governors within 10 days. Both sides would have a chance to present their evidence, and then the board would vote. If three-fourths of the board members vote to terminate, then Sterling would face termination of his ownership. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the board to reduce the termination to a fine. Terminating a franchise would obviously be a drastic remedy, but the potential of the termination procedure gives Silver and the other owners vast leverage in any discussion with Sterling about an involuntary sale of his team.
Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?
A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.
This part seems a huge stretch:
QuoteA: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely." Silver and the owners could assert that Sterling's statements violated the constitution's requirements to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.
How is being a giant racist asshole in a private (though taped) conversation with his gold-digging mistress "conducting business" in an "unethical" manner? Naturally I haven't seen the agreement, but the obvious interpretation of a contract like that is that it refers to the actual conduct of business. It's a big streatch to argue that, because his mistress is a gold-digger, his relationship with her is the conduct of "business", though no doubt such an argument would raise smiles in the court ... :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 01:27:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
:huh:
Why would Sterling want to keep a team that had no fans in the stands, sponsors or players - because that is exactly what would happen if he tried to keep the team.
If he sells now he will get a tidy ROE. He has plenty of movitivation to sell and not sue.
Sell, *then* sue. :) Allege that the team was worth more, but for the (alleged) illegal forced sale. No dount the other side will argue that it wasn't, and that in fact selling was the best financial option ...
Yes, that is something that might happen. I just dont see the argument BB is making that he loses nothing by attempting to hang onto the team.
I just cannot believe he would be ok with his mistress recording all their conversations. Because of the inherent trustworthiness of mistresses not to use that against you? Senile old fool.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 11:19:12 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 11:17:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 30, 2014, 10:04:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 10:03:18 AM
So are we going to get an all-black league or have those plans been shelved?
:rolleyes:
Hey, take it up with Larry Johnson, not me.
:huh: Shouldn't you be the one taking it up with Larry Johnson? You two are the only people who seem to want one.
Did I say I wanted one, grumblies?
Did I say you said you wanted one, Spiesster? Larry Johnson didn't say he wanted one, either.
QuoteYou two are the only people who seem to want one.
I'd say the seeming was about equal in your two cases.
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 01:27:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
:huh:
Why would Sterling want to keep a team that had no fans in the stands, sponsors or players - because that is exactly what would happen if he tried to keep the team.
If he sells now he will get a tidy ROE. He has plenty of movitivation to sell and not sue.
Sell, *then* sue. :) Allege that the team was worth more, but for the (alleged) illegal forced sale. No dount the other side will argue that it wasn't, and that in fact selling was the best financial option ...
When this first broke on Saturday talking heads were saying the Clippers were worth upwards of $750 million. I heard yesterday that the potential bidding war could drive the price well over a billion. Losing value on the forced sale would be pretty tough if any of that is remotely true.
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 01:34:29 PM
How is being a giant racist asshole in a private (though taped) conversation with his gold-digging mistress "conducting business" in an "unethical" manner? Naturally I haven't seen the agreement, but the obvious interpretation of a contract like that is that it refers to the actual conduct of business. It's a big streatch to argue that, because his mistress is a gold-digger, his relationship with her is the conduct of "business", though no doubt such an argument would raise smiles in the court ... :D
If this was just about the contents of the message I would be up in arms.
But it isn't. What happenedis it immediately brought attention to material that was previously published, but perhaps not well known, about the guy and his business practices.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729
Is a feature-length story about the guy in 2009. Very little of it is flattering.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 01:35:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 01:27:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
:huh:
Why would Sterling want to keep a team that had no fans in the stands, sponsors or players - because that is exactly what would happen if he tried to keep the team.
If he sells now he will get a tidy ROE. He has plenty of movitivation to sell and not sue.
Sell, *then* sue. :) Allege that the team was worth more, but for the (alleged) illegal forced sale. No dount the other side will argue that it wasn't, and that in fact selling was the best financial option ...
Yes, that is something that might happen. I just dont see the argument BB is making that he loses nothing by attempting to hang onto the team.
Sterling is already worth a billion dollars apart from the Clippers. The prestige and influence of being an NBA owner is much more important to the guy than even a couple hundred million dollars (and even then I'm not sure why launching a lawsuit against the NBA would decrease the value of the team).
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 01:34:29 PM
How is being a giant racist asshole in a private (though taped) conversation with his gold-digging mistress "conducting business" in an "unethical" manner? Naturally I haven't seen the agreement, but the obvious interpretation of a contract like that is that it refers to the actual conduct of business. It's a big streatch to argue that, because his mistress is a gold-digger, his relationship with her is the conduct of "business", though no doubt such an argument would raise smiles in the court ... :D
I can see the NBA looking at it like, "Maybe the legal case of us forcing him to sell the team is questionable. But if we make it maximally unpleasant for him to keep ownership, he might decide it isn't worth it, and if he goes through the courts and keeps the team, then at least we can say, "this isn't our choice" and no one can reasonably say we are tolerating him out of anything other than legal necessity.
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
Did I say you said you wanted one, Spiesster? Larry Johnson didn't say he wanted one, either.
:yeahright: I prefer "Spiessius".
Mitch Albom's (from the Detroit Free Press) Commentary
QuoteMitch Albom: NBA's punishment fits Donald Sterling's crime, but why did it get to this?
Commish makes effort to erase embarrassment
"We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling's views. They simply have no place in the NBA."
Adam Silver, NBA commissioner
Donald Sterling allegedly said black people smell and Mexicans only drink and smoke, and Asian women know how to provide sex the right way. You could have read a magazine five years ago that made these claims.
You could have studied legal documents nine years ago charging Sterling with refusing to rent to black tenants.
You could have Googled accusations that Sterling told his Clippers GM, Elgin Baylor, to find "poor black boys from the South" to play for "a white head coach," or that he once ordered the eviction of an elderly, legally blind woman, referring to her as "one of those black people that stink."
But with all that, plus a Department of Justice investigation, lawsuits for sexual harassment and sitting courtside next to a mistress despite a public marriage, Sterling and his money were embraced by the NBA for more than 30 years. He was given a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP (and was about to get another). Dallas owner Mark Cuban once told ESPN The Magazine, "I like Donald, he plays by his own rules."
Then those infamous tapes were leaked Saturday morning.
And suddenly, everyone was calling for Sterling's head. Cuban blasted him. Other owners acted as if, shockingly, their oldest member had just pulled on an ugly mask.
Really? Now you get religion?
Calling Sterling racist is easy. That's why so many pundits have done it. Deciding how to punish him is much, much harder. Give Adam Silver credit: The NBA commissioner made a tough, gutsy call that, under the circumstances, feels and looks like the right thing.
He banned Sterling for life, fined him the maximum of $2.5 million, and will try, through an owners vote, to force him to sell the team.
"The league is bigger than any one owner, any one coach, any one player," Silver said. It is the kind of thing a firm leader says. But to be honest, the new commissioner had little choice. Sterling's recorded comments about not wanting his mistress to be seen with black people at games were not just abhorrent and backward, they were bad for business. Sponsors pulled out. Players threatened to sit. If Silver let Sterling hang around — even in a peripheral way — how long before that cancer spread to the league itself?
So he lanced Sterling like a boil and he did it quickly — mostly because while the NBA, under then-commissioner David Stern, did nothing about this pig of an owner for decades, Sterling's allegedly angry mistress gave the league something impossible to ignore.
An audiotape.
And in today's world, that's the guillotine.
It spread like wildfire, so wild and loud that it drowned out any question of the ethics of making such a tape, selling such a tape or distributing such a tape.
Never mind all that. Silver, only three months on the job, had a grenade in his hands; he could hold it or throw it. And he threw it straight and true. It exploded into the harshest punishment he could level against an owner, and trust me, he studied the NBA's "constitution" (yes, they have one) to make sure no one, especially the players, could insist he do more.
Forcing an owner to sell the franchise is tough stuff, as strong as it gets. Even Marge Schott didn't get that, and she praised Hitler, slammed gays and called two of her players her "million-dollar" N-words.
But for those who say: "How can they force an owner to sell his team? It's not fair! What about the First Amendment?" just remember. The NBA is not a typical business. It's an exclusive club. They can vote owners in — and they can vote them out.
"I really think today was a big day for the NBA," veteran player Chauncey Billups told me. "I think what Adam Silver did today is not only gonna start the healing for what happened ... but this could leapfrog us into a greater day in the NBA."
He could be right. With praise coming in from within and outside the league, it feels as if the NBA is actually more united today than it was before this all happened.
But remember, we have not heard from Sterling's camp. His lawyers are no doubt scrambling, while advising him to lay low until the heat dies down. I doubt he will take this lying down, and even if he is forced to sell, he will reap hundreds of millions, and nobody will be happy about that. When asked what Sterling had to say about this, Silver said: "He has not expressed to me directly any other views."
I am glad we are not hearing from Sterling. But as a famous British statesman once noted, "you have not converted a man because you have silenced him." If anyone believes this billionaire, with his awful track record, is today lamenting his racism — as opposed to lamenting his choice in mistresses — you're crazy.
And if anyone believes that Sterling is the only business owner to say racist things about the people he employs, you don't know business or owners.
And if every business owner who ever made a prejudiced remark was forced to sell his or her business — bosses of every creed and color — there wouldn't be enough people left to buy them.
Adam Silver did not convert racism because he silenced its practitioner.
But it's a step.
Sports not a haven
What's so awful about Sterling's comments is that they reinforced an image this country has worked hard to erase: a rich white man treating black workers like trash. True, it's not quite slavery when you are doling out $73 million a year in payroll. But nobody thinks about money here. It is the stereotype of a white bigot looking down on the very people making him rich. It is disgusting and ultimately depressing. Because every time we feel like we're making progress in this difficult dance of diversity, a guy like Sterling kicks us back a couple of decades.
But I have been surprised to read pundits saying this Sterling incident somehow proved that sports is not a haven from racism. Whoever thought it was?
From Mike Tyson yelling "You punk white boy!" to John Rocker insulting foreigners to Sergio Garcia saying he'd serve "fried chicken" to Tiger Woods to Riley Cooper yelling a racial slur at a concert, to Hank Aaron to the Texas Western basketball team to Jackie Robinson, since when has sports been a haven? Sports is part of a world in which race is an issue. So on occasion, it will be an issue in sports, too. But remember: Every white person doesn't feel like Sterling, and every black person doesn't feel like Chris Culliver of the San Francisco 49ers who made anti-gay comments at the Super Bowl.
Sterling has long been the worst kind of example. The NBA should have crashed on him much earlier. But what his past transgressions didn't have was Internet access. Audio recordings. And the power of the media to broadcast it everywhere.
Let's face it. We live in a world where the disgraced walk side by side with the despicable, and the only difference is which one had the misfortune of a tape recorder, video camera or cell phone within earshot. That, too, will be a lesson of this incident. Read what Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said in TIME magazine this week:
"So, if we're all going to be outraged, let's be outraged that we weren't more outraged when (Sterling's) racism was first evident. Let's be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let's be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on 'Celebrity Apprentice' and 'Dancing with the Stars.' "
Let me add that if this woman comes forward to do a "tell-all" interview, we in the media should refuse her. She's no saint. She took Sterling's gifts and money until she couldn't anymore.
Sadly, I doubt my business will listen. We chase these stories, fuel them, and in our own way make money off them, and there's a hypocrisy that deserves comment.
But for now, this is as good an ending as the league could have hoped for. The NBA erased a current embarrassment. It didn't erase a past one. What it means for the future, only the future knows.
I look forward to the best selling tell all "Sterling Digger: My life as a rich man's mistress and then as a media sensation."
Quote from: Savonarola on April 30, 2014, 03:14:56 PM
I look forward to the best selling tell all "Sterling Digger: My life as a rich man's mistress and then as a media sensation."
Apparently she feels bad that the tape got out. Go fig.
Guy gets sued by the
US Department of Justice for bona fide racial discrimination against blacks: NBA does nothing.
Guy gets taped in his own home telling his mistress he doesn't want her showing him up in front of his friends with black dudes and rubbing it in his face while he's financially supporting her: booted out of the NBA forever, and going to lose his team.
The NBA's known he's been a useless racist asshole for decades, and did nothing. Years of blind eye underreaction, meet overreaction.
Hell, Marge Schott and George Steinbrenner did a hell of a lot worse racially--and those instances were directly team-related.
CNN showed some footage of her walking around with a bizarre visor-face mask thing, like a riot cop's visor.
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 30, 2014, 11:39:37 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 30, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
It will depend on a vote by the owners now, if 3/4 are ok, he'll be kicked out and forced to sell.
Supposedly the league constitution has that clause, but the use of it is limited to whether the team is in financial trouble or if there is game fixing / gambling.
On the radio they were saying he might be able to sue to block this and still keep the team. I'm not sure why he would want to though. He is going to be persona non grata, and no one will want to play or coach for him.
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
The Clippers are in L.A. and are finally doing well. Even if this scandal hadn't exploded it's in the League interest to sell the team at this point in time to someone who could keep them relevant in the long term.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2014, 07:30:40 PM
The NBA's known he's been a useless racist asshole for decades, and did nothing. Years of blind eye underreaction, meet overreaction.
Yeah, pretty much.
QuoteHell, Marge Schott and George Steinbrenner did a hell of a lot worse racially--and those instances were directly team-related.
Both of them delivered WS titles.
I miss Marge Schott. :(
I also miss Billy West's Marge Schott bits. :)
Most of the other evidence of him being a bigot were lawsuits that were settled out of court. This is the first real opportunity the NBA had to drop the hammer and they did it.
Also Stern was a pussy. There's a new sheriff in town.
Also I think he showed that it at least buys you some time if you write checks to the right people or organizations. Maybe even a couple NAACP awards.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
Did I say you said you wanted one, Spiesster? Larry Johnson didn't say he wanted one, either.
:yeahright: I prefer "Spiessius".
Specious? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 08:30:34 PM
Also I think he showed that it at least buys you some time if you write checks to the right people or organizations. Maybe even a couple NAACP awards.
That is disquieting. I bet they don't give back his donations.
Whatever happened to free speech? :weep:
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2014, 11:30:12 PM
Whatever happened to free speech? :weep:
Um it is different if you actually are openly racist in your business practices. Besides he did know he was being recorded by a person whose loyalty to his own interests were suspect at best.
Quote from: Valmy on April 30, 2014, 01:59:12 PM
I just cannot believe he would be ok with his mistress recording all their conversations. Because of the inherent trustworthiness of mistresses not to use that against you? Senile old fool.
Apparently he's been having memory problems.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-donald-sterling-tapes-20140429,0,7072200.story#ixzz30RJOSOcS
QuoteTMZ Sports has reported Stiviano has said she has more than 100 hours of recorded conversations with the 80-year-old Sterling, who is said to have used the tapes to refresh his memory because he frequently forgot what he said.
Well maybe the NBA should decide he is no longer mentally capable of being owner of the Clippers. Owners are sort of like kings, maybe there could be a regency.
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2014, 11:30:12 PM
Whatever happened to free speech? :weep:
The players were going to go on strike and the sponsers all dropped out. From a buisness standpoint Silver literally had no choice but to do what he did.
Furthermore, the NBA is a private cartel that can vote people on the island and vote people off it.
Third, Sterling is going to make a 750 million to a billion dollars as a result of this, so it's hard to really view as a punishment.
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2014, 11:30:12 PM
Whatever happened to free speech? :weep:
Free speech is for the dumb.
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2014, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2014, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 30, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
Did I say you said you wanted one, Spiesster? Larry Johnson didn't say he wanted one, either.
:yeahright: I prefer "Spiessius".
Specious? :unsure:
You ruined it, but yeah.
Spiesser is the German word for a square (person, not geometrical shape).
:cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 01, 2014, 12:50:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 30, 2014, 11:30:12 PM
Whatever happened to free speech? :weep:
The players were going to go on strike and the sponsers all dropped out. From a buisness standpoint Silver literally had no choice but to do what he did.
Furthermore, the NBA is a private cartel that can vote people on the island and vote people off it.
Third, Sterling is going to make a 750 million to a billion dollars as a result of this, so it's hard to really view as a punishment.
The left, once again taking away our freedoms!
Freedom to unethical business practices? :P
Though I do find it sort of interesting we seem to have less of a problem with actually discrimination against minorities and actually making their lives difficult, but will fly into a rage should somebody be recorded saying something racist. Thought crimes > actual crimes?
Valerie Jarrett on CNBC this morning talking about this. I wish the White House would grasp the concept of some things are beneath comment and should be ignored by the people with nuke-shooting authority.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 09:30:52 AM
Though I do find it sort of interesting we seem to have less of a problem with actually discrimination against minorities and actually making their lives difficult, but will fly into a rage should somebody be recorded saying something racist. Thought crimes > actual crimes?
Indeed. :(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 09:44:29 AM
Valerie Jarrett on CNBC this morning talking about this. I wish the White House would grasp the concept of some things are beneath comment and should be ignored by the people with nuke-shooting authority.
Agreed, though I didn't fault Obama's statement - "When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything, you just let them talk. That's what happened here."
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 09:44:29 AM
Valerie Jarrett on CNBC this morning talking about this. I wish the White House would grasp the concept of some things are beneath comment and should be ignored by the people with nuke-shooting authority.
Race issues or issues vaguely associated with race are red meat for this administration. It's like they can't help but inject themselves into the conversation.
<cue indignant Seedy rage>
Quote from: derspiess on May 01, 2014, 10:00:31 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 09:44:29 AM
Valerie Jarrett on CNBC this morning talking about this. I wish the White House would grasp the concept of some things are beneath comment and should be ignored by the people with nuke-shooting authority.
Race issues or issues vaguely associated with race are red meat for this administration. It's like they can't help but inject themselves into the conversation.
<cue indignant Seedy rage>
As long as we can avoid another beer summit.
Quote from: garbon on May 01, 2014, 10:14:11 AM
As long as we can avoid another beer summit.
BEER BRINGS US TOGETHER
Quote from: garbon on May 01, 2014, 09:57:22 AM
Agreed, though I didn't fault Obama's statement - "When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything, you just let them talk. That's what happened here."
But then they fined him, suspended him, and are forcing him to sell his NBA team. I wonder if Obama felt that was unnecessary.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 01, 2014, 10:20:39 AM
But then they fined him, suspended him, and are forcing him to sell his NBA team. I wonder if Obama felt that was unnecessary.
Yeah, pretty much.
edit: oops, reverse thathttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/obama-donald-sterling_n_5241411.html
QuoteObama Thinks NBA 'Has Done The Right Thing' By Banning Donald Sterling, Says WH Spokesman
I think if he had just stopped after that first sentence grabon quoted, he'd have nailed it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2014, 09:44:29 AM
Valerie Jarrett on CNBC this morning talking about this. I wish the White House would grasp the concept of some things are beneath comment and should be ignored by the people with nuke-shooting authority.
It unreasonably annoys me too.
I think the worst was when the PM's spokesman gave a comment on the pricing of the England football shirt :bleeding:
Are we talking about unprovoked statements or answering a question?
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 02:40:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 01:35:49 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 30, 2014, 01:27:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 30, 2014, 11:53:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 30, 2014, 11:44:32 AM
I was a little bit surprised Silver was going to try and force Sterling to sell. It gives Sterling no reason not to sue.
:huh:
Why would Sterling want to keep a team that had no fans in the stands, sponsors or players - because that is exactly what would happen if he tried to keep the team.
If he sells now he will get a tidy ROE. He has plenty of movitivation to sell and not sue.
Sell, *then* sue. :) Allege that the team was worth more, but for the (alleged) illegal forced sale. No dount the other side will argue that it wasn't, and that in fact selling was the best financial option ...
Yes, that is something that might happen. I just dont see the argument BB is making that he loses nothing by attempting to hang onto the team.
Sterling is already worth a billion dollars apart from the Clippers. The prestige and influence of being an NBA owner is much more important to the guy than even a couple hundred million dollars (and even then I'm not sure why launching a lawsuit against the NBA would decrease the value of the team).
Now you are just repeating yourself. If you think this guy will have any prestige and influence derived from owning a team after this, I wonder what definition you are using for those words.
Quote from: sbr on May 01, 2014, 11:16:07 AM
Are we talking about unprovoked statements or answering a question?
Answering a question and giving a bit too elaborate of an answer.
It fucking makes my blood boil when politicians' spokesmen give slightly too-elaborate answers to questions they were asked about current news.
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 09:30:52 AM
Freedom to unethical business practices? :P
Though I do find it sort of interesting we seem to have less of a problem with actually discrimination against minorities and actually making their lives difficult, but will fly into a rage should somebody be recorded saying something racist. Thought crimes > actual crimes?
Perhaps the amount of problem we have with actual discrimination is a function of its scarcity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2014, 12:38:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 01, 2014, 09:30:52 AM
Freedom to unethical business practices? :P
Though I do find it sort of interesting we seem to have less of a problem with actually discrimination against minorities and actually making their lives difficult, but will fly into a rage should somebody be recorded saying something racist. Thought crimes > actual crimes?
Perhaps the amount of problem we have with actual discrimination is a function of its scarcity.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 01, 2014, 12:34:54 PM
It fucking makes my blood boil when politicians' spokesmen give slightly too-elaborate answers to questions they were asked about current news.
And politicians themselves. That must make your blood boil extra hot.
Quote from: derspiess on May 01, 2014, 12:41:02 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 01, 2014, 12:34:54 PM
It fucking makes my blood boil when politicians' spokesmen give slightly too-elaborate answers to questions they were asked about current news.
And politicians themselves. That must make your blood boil extra hot.
Once it's boiling, it's boiling. I can't tell how it changes after that.
I bid 500 dollars for Blake Griffin.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 01, 2014, 06:28:29 PM
I bid 500 dollars for Blake Griffin.
Like 'em light skinned? :perv:
Quote from: sbr on April 30, 2014, 12:40:45 PM
This is from Lester Munson, ESPN Legal Expert. It was on Monday, before the announcement.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling)
QuoteThe alleged racist and misogynist rants of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling will test the leadership of new NBA commissioner Adam Silver. Sterling's apparent misconduct raises legal questions about Silver's authority and possible punishments to be assessed against Sterling:
Q: Can Silver force Sterling to say whether the voice on the tapes is his?
A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 24(m)(ii) of the "constitution" that governs the 30 owners of NBA teams and establishes the authority of the owners' commissioner, Silver can require Sterling to respond under oath to questions. The commissioner has "the right to require testimony and the production of documents and other evidence from any Member." As an owner, Sterling is a "member" of the NBA. Sterling and his lawyers could delay answering questions from Silver, but if Sterling refuses to admit or to deny that it is his voice on the tapes, he is in violation of the constitution and would face termination. He has no protection from the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination, because he is not facing any charge of any crime.
Q: What penalties can Silver issue?
A: Under the provisions of the bylaws, Silver has two sets of powers that he may use. Under either, he can issue a lifetime suspension and a substantial fine. Under Paragraph 24(l) of the constitution that was adopted by the NBA owners on Oct. 26, 2005, he can issue a fine of up to $2.5 million, can suspend an owner indefinitely and can order the forfeiture of draft picks. This provision applies to situations that are not covered by specific rules within the constitution. In another provision, Paragraph 35(A)(c), Silver can issue an indefinite suspension and a fine of $1 million to any owner who "makes ... a statement having or designed to have an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball." If Silver wants to hammer Sterling, he can assert that Sterling's statements are so egregious that they go beyond the misconduct contemplated in Paragraph 35 and allow Silver to assess the greater penalties found in Paragraph 24. Sterling can argue that he merely made a statement, but the statement at a minimum allows a lifetime suspension and a $1 million fine.
Q: Is it possible for Silver and the NBA to terminate Sterling's franchise ownership?
A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely." Silver and the owners could assert that Sterling's statements violated the constitution's requirements to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.
Any owner or Silver can initiate the termination procedure with a written charge describing the violation. Sterling would have five days to respond to the charge with a written answer. The commissioner would then schedule a special meeting of the NBA Board of Governors within 10 days. Both sides would have a chance to present their evidence, and then the board would vote. If three-fourths of the board members vote to terminate, then Sterling would face termination of his ownership. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the board to reduce the termination to a fine. Terminating a franchise would obviously be a drastic remedy, but the potential of the termination procedure gives Silver and the other owners vast leverage in any discussion with Sterling about an involuntary sale of his team.
Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?
A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.
Has Sterling either admitted or denied that it's his voice on the tape? If he admits it, that's one thing, but if he denies it, wouldn't he have some recourse on that basis if the league sanctions him without proof?
Decisions by the commissioner are binding and cannot be appealed.
He admitted it. Doesn't seem busted up about it in the least, either.
If I was Donald Sterling, I'd strip the team facilities of everything not nailed down.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 01, 2014, 07:43:04 PM
If I was Donald Sterling, I'd strip the team facilities of everything not nailed down.
are you donald sterling
Quote from: fhdz on May 01, 2014, 08:07:38 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 01, 2014, 07:43:04 PM
If I was Donald Sterling, I'd strip the team facilities of everything not nailed down.
are you donald sterling
Maybe.
I'm salivating over the prospect! :menace:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140429/donald-sterling-nba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/#ixzz30W5FueDD
Quote2. Sterling suing may lead to pretrial discovery, which could be designed in part to embarrass other owners and NBA officials of any bigoted remarks or beliefs on their part. Keep in mind, if Sterling is ousted because of racism, he would likely demand that evidence showing that other owners and officials are also racist be shared. He would use such information to portray his penalty as unwarranted and contradicted by the conduct of those who ousted him. Sterling might request emails and other records from owners and officials that depict them in a negative light. Sterling has owned the Clippers for 33 years, which suggests that he has had many interactions -- including private conversations with league officials and owners. If there are other owners who are racist or bigoted, it stands to reason Sterling knows who they are.
Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.
But he's salviaiating!
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 08:26:24 PM
Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.
He's a spiteful old man. Even if the court rules against him he'll probably just leak it to the media.
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/la-naacp-head-resigns-move-honor-sterling-23556060
QuoteLA NAACP Head Resigns Over Move to Honor Sterling
The president of the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP resigned Thursday, following outrage over a decision he later reversed to give Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling an award for promoting civil rights.
Leon Jenkins was to honor Sterling later this month, but rescinded that offer Monday after a recording surfaced over the weekend on which Sterling disparaged black men.
In a letter to the national leader of the nation's oldest civil rights organization, Jenkins wrote that he resigned "to separate the Los Angeles NAACP and the NAACP from the negative exposure I have caused."
A telephone message and email seeking comment after business hours from the Los Angeles chapter were not immediately returned.
Even before the recording, the decision to give Sterling a "lifetime achievement award" May 15 at the 100th anniversary celebration of the Los Angeles chapter had been questioned by some civil rights activists, who cited allegations of discrimination in Sterling's past.
The U.S. Justice Department sued Sterling in August 2006, alleging housing discrimination in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles. In November 2009, Sterling agreed to pay $2.7 million to settle allegations that he refused to rent apartments to Hispanics and blacks.
Also in 2009, the year after Jenkins was first elected president in Los Angeles, the chapter first honored Sterling with a similar achievement award.
Branches of the NAACP — there are more than 50 in California alone — operate with considerable autonomy. In a statement accompanying the resignation announcement, the national NAACP said it is "developing guidelines for its branches to help them in their award selection process."
Jenkins said that Sterling had been selected owing to his history of donating to minority charities and giving game tickets to inner-city children. The Donald T. Sterling Charitable Foundation gave $5,000 to the NAACP's Los Angeles chapter in 2010, according to tax records. There were no further NAACP contributions in subsequent years for which records were available.
After the recording of Sterling having a private conversation with a woman became public, Jenkins backtracked.
"There is a personal, economic and social price that Mr. Sterling must pay for his attempt to turn back the clock on race relations," he said Monday.
On Tuesday, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned Sterling from the league for life, fined the real estate magnate $2.5 million, and said he wanted the league's board of governors to make Sterling sell the team.
Sterling is the NBA's longest-tenured owner. He is also among the league's least successful, though in recent years the Clippers have surged. News of Jenkins' resignation broke an hour before the Clippers tipped off against the Golden State Warriors in a first-round playoff game.
Reacting to the announcement, local activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson said the NAACP's Los Angeles chapter needed to become "fully transparent and accountable to its members and community and not to dubious corporate donors."
Jenkins had his own legal problems, which also came into focus this week. For years, he has been banned from practicing law in California based on allegations of corruption when he was a young judge in Detroit.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 01, 2014, 08:37:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 08:26:24 PM
Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.
He's a spiteful old man. Even if the court rules against him he'll probably just leak it to the media.
If he sues he wont be able to ask the question if its not relevant. If he already knows then he doesnt have to sue to leak it to the media.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 01, 2014, 08:27:20 PM
But he's salviaiating!
His saliva glands are a dairy farm!
With Jeremy Clarkson now apparently caught saying the naughty word, he will be forced to sell his cars.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 08:26:24 PM
Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.
His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.
Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.
Lawyered :P
Apparently one of the reasons why the league didn't act earlier is that the guy has been fighting prostate cancer for several years and he had been almost ruled out several times.
Quote from: The Larch on May 02, 2014, 08:40:17 AM
Apparently one of the reasons why the league didn't act earlier is that the guy has been fighting prostate cancer for several years and he had been almost ruled out several times.
Sounds like a nice excuse after the fact.
I do wonder if there are a few other NBA owners that are nervous this week.
Quote from: HVC on May 02, 2014, 08:36:18 AM
Lawyered :P
The judge could well rule all that evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. :hmm:
Reminds me of a case I had years ago, the guy suing my client was a "priest" (really a scam artist) who alleged (correctly!) that he'd been defrauded of hundreds of thousands of dollars in his hard-earned cash (which he in turn had stolen from others).
We desperately wanted to get into evidence the fact that he - the "priest" - had beed arrested and convicted a decade before for importing massive quantities of revolting hardcore porn - namely, women comitting acts of beastiality (sorry, Brain :( ) in South American countries - really nasty stuff, obviously coerced and drugged-up models (according to the indictment or whatever they call it in the US). We did that by seeking security for costs, alleging that, as a former felon living in a foreign country, he was unlikely to be willing to pay his costs if he lost! We got the evidence in. Best part: female judge. :contract:
That case was a wild one in every way - by the end of it, our client was being sued by Jesus Christ, the Son of Man. Seriously. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.
Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.
I really doubt that he is going to find a bunch of racist comments made by other owners. Also, even in the event he could, I think there is an argument that ultimately the publicity of the racist comments is a critical part of the effecting the actual conduct of business. I don't know if the NBA would make that, or if it would hold up.
Probably his best strategy is to say that he is an elderly man suffering from cancer and dementia, and has stepped back from the operations of the team. The comments weren't impacting the day to day operations of the team; he isn't even involved in them very much anymore. Then bring in an expert on dementia to discuss all the horrible things people with dementia sometimes say.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2014, 08:49:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.
Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.
I really doubt that he is going to find a bunch of racist comments made by other owners. Also, even in the event he could, I think there is an argument that ultimately the publicity of the racist comments is a critical part of the effecting the actual conduct of business. I don't know if the NBA would make that, or if it would hold up.
Probably his best strategy is to say that he is an elderly man suffering from cancer and dementia, and has stepped back from the operations of the team. The comments weren't impacting the day to day operations of the team; he isn't even involved in them very much anymore. Then bring in an expert on dementia to discuss all the horrible things people with dementia sometimes say.
Absolutely, if he wants to win the case. I'm assuming the money is trivial for an 80 year old billionaire, and what he would want is to shit disturb and troll his fellow-owners. :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 08:51:46 AM
Absolutely, if he wants to win the case. I'm assuming the money is trivial for an 80 year old billionaire, and what he would want is to shit disturb and troll his fellow-owners. :contract:
He could probably do both?
Probably the biggest act of trolling would be to win though, right? Any positive cache he gets as an owner has to be gone forever, and by keeping the team he is probably impairing its value. I just imagine him sitting at half court in a mostly empty arena without sponsors with only the bottom dregs of the NBA willing to play for him, despised by everyone. It would be like old times, actually, but on steroids.
We shall see. Some of the owners are actually corporations which are limited in their ability to say racist things. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think his comments are unique among owners.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 08:26:24 PM
Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.
His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.
Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.
You are confusing the league constituting documents with an employment contract where that sort of argument would be relevant. This isnt really a breach of contract case. The league acts like a Society which gives discretion to the commissioner to act with the powers of an arbitrator and who's decisions are ratified by the rest of the Society according to its bylaws.
The only way to attack that decision is to argue that the bylaws of the league were not followed. ie an administrative law question.
Edit: and I should add, a legal question to which to evidence Timmay speculated about is completely irrelevant.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2014, 09:01:17 AM
We shall see. Some of the owners are actually corporations which are limited in their ability to say racist things.
People who work in or run corporations can say racist things.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 09:05:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2014, 09:01:17 AM
We shall see. Some of the owners are actually corporations which are limited in their ability to say racist things.
People who work in or run corporations can say racist things.
And then the board of directors is appalled that such a person is employed by them, and terminates him immediately; issuing a very firm statement that the company in no way supports or tolerates racial discrimination of any kind, etc.
Unless you find the board of directors discussing their support for racism amongst themselves, I don't think you have much. Others may see it differently though.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
And then the board of directors is appalled that such a person is employed by them, and terminates him immediately; issuing a very firm statement that the company in no way supports or tolerates racial discrimination of any kind, etc.
Unless you find the board of directors discussing their support for racism amongst themselves, I don't think you have much. Others may see it differently though.
It's enough for a news story these days. Maybe the NAACP is already on the job, selling them indulgences.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2014, 07:51:51 AM
With Jeremy Clarkson now apparently caught saying the naughty word, he will be forced to sell his cars.
I hope the NFL makes Irsay sell the Colts, but the prosecutors seizing them as forfeiture would work, too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 09:02:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 08:33:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2014, 08:26:24 PM
Its a nice bit of speculation but there would first have to be a cause of action which made all of that information relevant.
His allegation = breach of contract; that his racism is not unethical business conduct sufficient to justify his ouster under the terms of the agreement.
Part of his evidence: that racist comments were part of the general background banter commonly indulged in by owners and has nothing to do with the actual conduct of business. He introduces into evidence lots of examples in order to demonstrate this is the case.
You are confusing the league constituting documents with an employment contract where that sort of argument would be relevant. This isnt really a breach of contract case. The league acts like a Society which gives discretion to the commissioner to act with the powers of an arbitrator and who's decisions are ratified by the rest of the Society according to its bylaws.
The only way to attack that decision is to argue that the bylaws of the league were not followed. ie an administrative law question.
Edit: and I should add, a legal question to which to evidence Timmay speculated about is completely irrelevant.
If it is subject to judicial review, the analysis is very similar - except instead of arguing breach of contract, he would be arguing that the decision was
ultra vires the commissioner's powers under the constitution, in that it was made on the basis of an irrelevant consideration (that is, that he's a racist asshole who got noticed as such, when according to the analysis of some dude quoted upthread, the power to dismiss is conditional on him engaging in "unethical business").
Again, the issue would be (allegedly) whether being a racist asshole in coversation with his gold-digger is reasonably something that could be characterized as "unethical business" conduct. An argument could be made that trhe evidence is relevant to that.
What are the chances Sterling has racist rants by other owners on tape or on paper, signed?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2014, 10:32:31 AM
What are the chances Sterling has racist rants by other owners on tape or on paper, signed?
And what are the chances he forgot where he put them?
Yeah I don't know if 80 year old senile people quite have it in them to take down the system.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 10:50:29 AM
Yeah I don't know if 80 year old senile people quite have it in them to take down the system.
Perhaps by accident or dumb luck, but yeah.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2014, 10:32:31 AM
What are the chances Sterling has racist rants by other owners on tape or on paper, signed?
Probably better than my chances at winning the Powerball.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2014, 10:32:31 AM
What are the chances Sterling has racist rants by other owners on tape or on paper, signed?
What are the chances he has "unwise" emails from the other owners? Dunno. Given the general stupidity people display around emails, it is possible.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 10:50:29 AM
Yeah I don't know if 80 year old senile people quite have it in them to take down the system.
He's an 80 year old senile billionaire. He can hire people to do that for him. :P
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 10:21:35 AM
Again, the issue would be (allegedly) whether being a racist asshole in coversation with his gold-digger is reasonably something that could be characterized as "unethical business" conduct. An argument could be made that trhe evidence is relevant to that.
I am not sure how it could be. He would be making the argument, sure I am a racist asshole but so are the others and so they cant do this to me. But that is not the legal test. The legal test is whether the league's bylaws were followed. Whether others were racist assholes isnt relevant. What is relevant is whether being a racist asshole was a sufficent ground for the commissioner to exercise his authority under the bylaws.
The argument you are suggesting is very similar to a case I just finished where a person was found by a self regulating body to have commited a wrong. The person's defence was sure I did it but so did x so you cant pick on me. They dropped the case pretty quickly when it became clear to them through various unsuccessful interlocutory applications that the court was of the view that evidence that x also commited the wrong was not relevant.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
What are the chances he has "unwise" emails from the other owners? Dunno. Given the general stupidity people display around emails, it is possible.
A billionth of a percent.
You multiply the probability of an NBA owner being stupid enough to put racist remarks in print times the probability of an NBA owner sending another NBA owner an email.
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2014, 10:32:31 AM
What are the chances Sterling has racist rants by other owners on tape or on paper, signed?
What are the chances he has "unwise" emails from the other owners? Dunno. Given the general stupidity people display around emails, it is possible.
What are the chances he ever learned how to check email?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 11:10:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 10:21:35 AM
Again, the issue would be (allegedly) whether being a racist asshole in coversation with his gold-digger is reasonably something that could be characterized as "unethical business" conduct. An argument could be made that trhe evidence is relevant to that.
I am not sure how it could be. He would be making the argument, sure I am a racist asshole but so are the others and so they cant do this to me. But that is not the legal test. The legal test is whether the league's bylaws were followed. Whether others were racist assholes isnt relevant. What is relevant is whether being a racist asshole was a sufficent ground for the commissioner to exercise his authority under the bylaws.
The argument you are suggesting is very similar to a case I just finished where a person was found by a self regulating body to have commited a wrong. The person's defence was sure I did it but so did x so you cant pick on me. They dropped the case pretty quickly when it became clear to them through various unsuccessful interlocutory applications that the court was of the view that evidence that x also commited the wrong was not relevant.
How does this address the Malthus quote you posted? It doesn't say anything about others being guilty of the same thing but rather questions whether being an admitted racist asshole constitutes unethical business practices.
Granted, it's probably a moot point because there probably is evidence that he has engaged in discriminatory practices in his business dealings, which certainly should constitute unethical business practices.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 11:49:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2014, 10:32:31 AM
What are the chances Sterling has racist rants by other owners on tape or on paper, signed?
What are the chances he has "unwise" emails from the other owners? Dunno. Given the general stupidity people display around emails, it is possible.
What are the chances he ever learned how to check email?
Not as good as the chances that he's hired someone to do it for him.
Quote from: dps on May 02, 2014, 11:50:58 AM
How does this address the Malthus quote you posted?
:huh:
Malthus' point was the argument could be made it wasnt unethical because others also do it. Unless I have entirely missed his point.
If that isnt the argument then how could the evidence of others being racist assholes possibly be relevent?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2014, 12:03:52 PM
Quote from: dps on May 02, 2014, 11:50:58 AM
How does this address the Malthus quote you posted?
:huh:
Malthus' point was the argument could be made it wasnt unethical because others also do it. Unless I have entirely missed his point.
If that isnt the argument then how could the evidence of others being racist assholes possibly be relevent?
He had 2 separate points, as I understood it. One of them was that he may have evidence that other owners are racist assholes, but the one he was talking about in the part of his post that you had quoted was that a racist opinion expressed to his girlfriend shouldn't be considered an unethical business practice, because it has nothing to do with running his business. At least, that's how I understood his position.
How do you get from that understanding to our discussion of whether evidence that others are assholes might be relevant?
Continuing the Jeremy Clarkson hijack:
QuoteIt also emerged on Friday that lawyers are planning to write to Barack Obama and the ambassadors of every country in which Top Gear is aired asking them if the BBC motoring series should continue to be broadcast.
Lawrence Davies, director of the law firm Equal Justice, branded Top Gear as "racist" and told MediaGuardian his firm did not accept the apology Clarkson had made.
Davies said: "We are to write to every ambassador and the US president next week asking them to consider the evidence and then to decide if this racist show should be broadcast in their country in future."
:wacko:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2014, 04:30:48 PM
Continuing the Jeremy Clarkson hijack:
QuoteIt also emerged on Friday that lawyers are planning to write to Barack Obama and the ambassadors of every country in which Top Gear is aired asking them if the BBC motoring series should continue to be broadcast.
Lawrence Davies, director of the law firm Equal Justice, branded Top Gear as "racist" and told MediaGuardian his firm did not accept the apology Clarkson had made.
Davies said: "We are to write to every ambassador and the US president next week asking them to consider the evidence and then to decide if this racist show should be broadcast in their country in future."
:wacko:
Makes sense.
Wait who is this Clarkson guy and what did he do? What show is this? WTF?
Is it an all blackface show where they dance and sing Minstrel Tunes or something?
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 04:39:31 PM
Wait who is this Clarkson guy and what did he do? What show is this? WTF?
Is it an all blackface show where they dance and sing Minstrel Tunes or something?
Americans. :rolleyes:
Texas no have TV?
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2014, 04:41:22 PM
Texas no have TV?
Excuse me if I do not have all the Nazi KKK channels you racist Swedes have.
Val:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/clarkson-tips-over-reliant-robin
The tall idiot.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 02, 2014, 04:41:22 PM
Texas no have TV?
Excuse me if I do not have all the Nazi KKK channels you racist Swedes have.
I bet Texas has color TV. :x
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Val:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/clarkson-tips-over-reliant-robin
The tall idiot.
English engineering. :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2014, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 04:39:31 PM
Wait who is this Clarkson guy and what did he do? What show is this? WTF?
Is it an all blackface show where they dance and sing Minstrel Tunes or something?
Americans. :rolleyes:
Valmy & cars do not mix. He's the lone exception to the MEN DRIVE rule.
I'm gonna take his man card away.
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 04:39:31 PM
Wait who is this Clarkson guy and what did he do? What show is this? WTF?
Is it an all blackface show where they dance and sing Minstrel Tunes or something?
It is Top Gear, the most popular TV show in the world.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 11:49:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 02, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2014, 10:32:31 AM
What are the chances Sterling has racist rants by other owners on tape or on paper, signed?
What are the chances he has "unwise" emails from the other owners? Dunno. Given the general stupidity people display around emails, it is possible.
What are the chances he ever learned how to check email?
He was able to check his girlfriend's instagram account, so I assume he was capable of using email.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2014, 05:45:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 02, 2014, 04:39:31 PM
Wait who is this Clarkson guy and what did he do? What show is this? WTF?
Is it an all blackface show where they dance and sing Minstrel Tunes or something?
It is Top Gear, the most popular TV show in the world.
:lmfao: Oh, my.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Val:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/clarkson-tips-over-reliant-robin
The tall idiot.
The racism in that show is shocking. Did you see how he mocked PoNEs (People of Northern England)? The stereotyping and patronizing was nauseating. Not even a trigger warning.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 05:09:31 PM
Valmy & cars do not mix. He's the lone exception to the MEN DRIVE rule.
Damn straight. Hate cars.
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 11:01:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 05:09:31 PM
Valmy & cars do not mix. He's the lone exception to the MEN DRIVE rule.
Damn straight. Hate cars.
:hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 11:00:32 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 02, 2014, 04:48:56 PM
Val:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/clarkson-tips-over-reliant-robin
The tall idiot.
The racism in that show is shocking. Did you see how he mocked PoNEs (People of Northern England)? The stereotyping and patronizing was nauseating. Not even a trigger warning.
Have you seen Jos's posts?
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 11:01:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 05:09:31 PM
Valmy & cars do not mix. He's the lone exception to the MEN DRIVE rule.
Damn straight. Hate cars.
Man Card: REVOKED.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2014, 07:26:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 11:01:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 05:09:31 PM
Valmy & cars do not mix. He's the lone exception to the MEN DRIVE rule.
Damn straight. Hate cars.
Man Card: REVOKED.
I already had it revoked back in 1995 when I admitted I loved that movie 'Clueless'.
Clueless is a great movie.
I loved Clueless. Mean Girls also.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 09:38:11 AM
I already had it revoked back in 1995 when I admitted I loved that movie 'Clueless'.
It seems like Ed's man card would primarily entitle you to hang out with him and garbon and some boys in a yard and be fabulous.
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 11:01:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 05:09:31 PM
Valmy & cars do not mix. He's the lone exception to the MEN DRIVE rule.
Damn straight. Hate cars.
The show isn't about cars. It's about three guys having a prolonged midlife crisis.
It must be the best job....
in the world.
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:43:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 09:38:11 AM
I already had it revoked back in 1995 when I admitted I loved that movie 'Clueless'.
It seems like Ed's man card would primarily entitle you to hang out with him and garbon and some boys in a yard and be fabulous.
I don't see why that would be the case. Casting my support doesn't mean that is what Ed is limited to. :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on May 06, 2014, 12:43:05 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 09:38:11 AM
I already had it revoked back in 1995 when I admitted I loved that movie 'Clueless'.
It seems like Ed's man card would primarily entitle you to hang out with him and garbon and some boys in a yard and be fabulous.
Well, you certainly ain't invited.
Snap snap.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 09:38:11 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2014, 07:26:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2014, 11:01:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2014, 05:09:31 PM
Valmy & cars do not mix. He's the lone exception to the MEN DRIVE rule.
Damn straight. Hate cars.
Man Card: REVOKED.
I already had it revoked back in 1995 when I admitted I loved that movie 'Clueless'.
Nah, Hot Chicks!
Turk Turkleton.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 06, 2014, 07:44:11 AM
Well, you certainly ain't invited.
Snap snap.
I didn't notice.
Quote from: Valmy on May 05, 2014, 09:38:11 AM
I already had it revoked back in 1995 when I admitted I loved that movie 'Clueless'.
Sir, we're going to have to ask you to turn in your penis. Security will escort you to the Moist and Warm Birthing Canal of YOU'RE FIRED.
http://nba.si.com/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-magic-johnson-aids-clippers-owner-cnn/
QuoteDisgraced Clippers owner Donald Sterling launched into an extended tirade against Magic Johnson, saying that the Lakers legend should be "ashamed" of being HIV-positive and suggesting that he hasn't financially supported minority communities.
...
When the topic turned to Johnson, however, the 80-year-old Sterling launched into multiple, extended diatribes against one of the most popular NBA players of all time.
"What has he done? Can you tell me? Big Magic Johnson, what has he done? He's got AIDS, " Sterling told CNN. "Did he do any business? Did he help anybody in South LA? ... What kind of guy goes to every city and has sex with every girl and catches AIDS?"
Sterling was just getting started.
"What kind of guy goes to every city, has sex with every girl, then he goes and catches HIV," he said. "Is that someone we want to respect and tell our kids about? I think he should be ashamed of himself. I think he should go into the background. And what does he do for black people? He hasn't done anything.
"Here's a man I don't know if I should say this, he acts so holy. He made love with every girl in every city in America, and he had AIDS, and when he had those AIDS, I went to my synagogue and I prayed for him. I hoped he could live and be well. I didn't criticize him. I could have. Is he an example for children? You know, because he has money, he's able to treat himself. But Magic Johnson is irrelevant in this thing. He didn't do anything harmful to anybody and I respect him and I admire everything that he does. I'd like to help even more if he would offer me an opportunity to help. I like to help minorities."
"If I said anything wrong, I'm sorry. He's a good person. I mean, what am I going to say? Has he done everything he can do to help minorities? I don't think so. But I'll say it, he's great. But I don't think he's a good example for the children of Los Angeles."
The only thing that could possibly excuse Sterling at this point is dementia.
Actually, his excuse seems to be that he's not racist; he just as nasty as he can get away with being to everyone and if he's sometimes been nastier to minorities, it's just because society's racism has allowed to to get away with more against them.
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2014, 11:00:13 PM
Actually, his excuse seems to be that he's not racist; he just as nasty as he can get away with being to everyone and if he's sometimes been nastier to minorities, it's just because society's racism has allowed to to get away with more against them.
:hmm: That's a pretty clever line of attack, but I'm not buying it.
I see Sterling has started his version of a charm offensive.
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2014, 11:00:13 PM
Actually, his excuse seems to be that he's not racist; he just as nasty as he can get away with being to everyone and if he's sometimes been nastier to minorities, it's just because society's racism has allowed to to get away with more against them.
His excuse seems to be that he was trying to get laid.
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2014, 06:42:04 PM
I would not touch that with a ten-foot pole.
You are correct. But it would be
her decision.
En fuego!
Quote from: alfred russel on May 12, 2014, 10:15:05 PM
The only thing that could possibly excuse Sterling at this point is dementia.
The fact his response to this has not been to go into exile and wait out the storm almost has to suggest this is the case. I guess there is nobody around him who can intervene.
Quote from: Valmy on May 16, 2014, 12:48:51 PMI guess there is nobody around him who can intervene.
Often the case with very powerful people. Once you get used to being able to do anything you want and nobody ever contradicting you, there's a sense of invincibility that can build up.
Two billion dollars. :lol:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ap-source-multiple-bids-play-002242946--nba.html
QuoteAP Source: Former Microsoft CEO wins Clippers bid
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Shelly Sterling reached an agreement Thursday night to sell the Los Angeles Clippers to former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer for $2 billion in what would be a record deal if approved by the NBA, according to an individual with knowledge of the negotiations.
The individual, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly, told The Associated Press that Ballmer and the Sterling Family Trust now have a binding agreement. The deal now must be presented to the NBA.
Shelly Sterling negotiated the sale after her husband, Donald Sterling, made racist remarks that were made public. The remarks included Sterling telling girlfriend V. Stiviano not to bring blacks to Clippers games, specifically mentioning Hall of Famer Magic Johnson. Donald Sterling must also approve the final agreement as a 50 percent owner.
Ballmer beat out bids by Guggenheim Partners and a group including former NBA All-Star Grant Hill after presenting an ''all-around superior bid,'' the individual said. Ballmer made more than an hour-long personal visit to Shelly Sterling's Malibu home Sunday and laid out his plan.
''He knocked their socks off, they bonded, had a good connection,'' the individual said. The amount was also the largest of the offers, and Ballmer was one potential buyer to deal with rather than multiple in a group.
On Thursday, Magic Johnson posted on his Twitter account: ''Steve Ballmer owning the Clippers is a big win for the City of LA and all the people who live in the City of Angels!''
It's unclear if the deal will go through. The individual said that though Donald Sterling was not involved in the negotiations, ''at the end of the day, he has to sign off on the final process. They're not going to sell his 50 percent without him agreeing to it.''
Donald Sterling's attorney says that won't happen. ''Sterling is not selling the team,'' said his attorney, Bobby Samini. ''That's his position. He's not going to sell.''
That's despite a May 22 letter obtained by The Associated Press and written by another one of Sterling's attorneys that says that ''Donald T. Sterling authorizes Rochelle Sterling to negotiate with the National Basketball Association regarding all issues in connection with a sale of the Los Angeles Clippers team.'' It includes the line ''read and approved'' and Donald Sterling's signature.
Samini said Sterling has had a change of heart primarily because of ''the conduct of the NBA.'' He said NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's decision to ban Sterling for life and fine him $2.5 million as well as to try to oust him as an owner was him acting as ''judge, jury and executioner.''
''They're telling me he should stand back and let them take his team because his opinion on that particular day was not good, was not popular?'' Samini said. ''That his team should be stripped from him? It doesn't make sense. He's going to fight.''
It's unclear how the agreement will affect a special hearing of NBA owners planned for Tuesday in New York to consider the charge against Donald Sterling for damaging the league with his comments. A three-quarters vote of the 30 owners to support the charge would have resulted in the termination of both Sterlings' ownership of the franchise.
The deal with Ballmer will go to the NBA for the league's approval sometime before Tuesday, the individual said, ostensibly rendering Tuesday's hearing moot.
Silver has said his preference would be for the franchise to be sold rather than seized - and that means sold in its entirety, with neither Sterling retaining a stake. Though according to the deal's terms Ballmer will own 100 percent of the team, Shelly Sterling may continue to be involved under conditions worked out privately with Ballmer, the individual said.
Franchise sale prices have soared since the current collective bargaining agreement was ratified in 2011. The Milwaukee Bucks were just sold to New York investment firm executives Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens for about $550 million, an NBA record.
Last year, Vivek Ranadive's group acquired a 65 percent controlling interest in the Sacramento Kings at a total franchise valuation of more than $534 million.
The bid for the Clippers, purchased by Sterling in 1981 for a little more than $12 million, blew right past those.
It is not Ballmer's first foray into potential NBA ownership. Ballmer and investor Chris Hansen headed the group that agreed to a deal to buy the Kings from the Maloof family in January 2013 with the intention of moving them to Seattle, where the SuperSonics played until 2008.
But Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson lobbied the NBA for time to put together a bid to keep the team in California, and though the Ballmer-Hansen group later increased its offer, owners voted to deny the bid for relocation and the Kings were sold to Ranadive.
The person with knowledge of the deal said that Ballmer would have to ensure the team remains in Los Angeles.
The former Microsoft CEO helped Bill Gates transform the company from a tiny startup with fewer than 40 employees and $12 million in annual revenue into the world's most valuable business. The pair met in 1973 while living down the hall from each other at a Harvard dorm.
During his tenure at Microsoft, Ballmer was known for his competitive drive and wild displays of emotion and hand-waving.
At his farewell address to Microsoft employees, he high-fived and hugged audience members, pumped his fists in the air, and even shed tears as the popular 1987 song ''(I've Had) The Time of My Life'' played on the sound system. In a video of the event widely viewed on YouTube, he screams: ''You work for the greatest company in the world!''
---
AP Basketball Writer Brian Mahoney contributed to this report.
---
Tami Abdollah can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/latams
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/donald-sterling-attends-black-church-photos.html?mid=facebook_nymag
QuoteDonald Sterling Showed Up to a Black Church Service: The Awkward Photos
Photos & Video at the link :lol:
Sweet. I hope he starts going to Praises of Zion Missionary Baptist Church every Sunday. Wonder how much cash he gave the pastor.
My God somebody needs to help this old Alzheimering dude. This is sad and embarrassing.
Still though, at that age and with that much money, you're simply overflowing with a whole lot of Who Gives A Shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 10:54:04 AM
Still though, at that age and with that much money, you're simply overflowing with a whole lot of Who Gives A Shit.
Obviously not. The dude keeps trying to show how unracist he is. He would be better served with that attitude.
But then he has Alzheimers. Which makes sense once my Grandmother got Alzheimer she started saying all this crazy shit.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 10:58:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 10:54:04 AM
Still though, at that age and with that much money, you're simply overflowing with a whole lot of Who Gives A Shit.
Obviously not. The dude keeps trying to show how unracist he is. He would be better served with that attitude.
Only because he's still trying to score minority pussy.
Good Cali Mixed race pussy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 05:18:40 PM
Only because he's still trying to score minority pussy.
I am sure he could find plenty of minority pussy who would overlook his racism for a billionaire.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 10:58:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 10:54:04 AM
Still though, at that age and with that much money, you're simply overflowing with a whole lot of Who Gives A Shit.
Obviously not. The dude keeps trying to show how unracist he is. He would be better served with that attitude.
I think in part he probably doesn't want to think of himself as racist (or genuinely doesn't think of himself as racist) as that's an awful thing to be. So he wants to show to himself, as well as everyone else, how unracist he is.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2014, 01:52:25 PM
I think in part he probably doesn't want to think of himself as racist (or genuinely doesn't think of himself as racist) as that's an awful thing to be. So he wants to show to himself, as well as everyone else, how unracist he is.
That would be a reasonable narcissistic response. But he has Alzheimers so God knows what he is thinking.
It may not even be narcissistic. Being seen as a racist is probably one of the worst things in our society - it puts you beyond the pale. I think everyone (even racists) wants to think the best of themselves. So if everyone sees you as racist and says it then chances are you want to try and prove to everyone (but above all yourself) that you're not really racist.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 10:58:11 AM
But then he has Alzheimers. Which makes sense once my Grandmother got Alzheimer she started saying all this crazy shit.
Ha. I remember watching the Rose Bowl with Princesca's graddad once after he started going over the edge and he made some comment along the lines of "Why do they have to put so many blacks on television these days? Who wants to see that? BLACKS!" :)
Yeah my grandmother would say things like 'why is her skin black? She shouldn't stay out in the sun so long' real loud out in public. It was really sad since she was never like that before her brain started going.
Where there is age there is wisdom.
BLACKS!
At least he said 'BLACKS'. That's progress.
My dad's parents said "colored" all the time, though it was innocent and just the term they grew up with. I never really heard them speak negatively about people of color.
Now my mom's dad threw the n-word around freely but my mom's mom usually scolded him for it and reminded us that "black" was the appropriate term. Looking back, I suspect that 90% of his "racism" was an attempt to get on her nerves. I never saw him treat black folks any differently from whites.
Moon crickets
One time her grandma said to him "Bill, what happens if you get to heaven and it turns out that St. Peter is black?"
He said "Well, then I guess I'm screwed!" :D