NBA / NCAA Basketball

[patricknd]

As I understood from "our" press, that was a private conversation. Illegally taped (by the $lut in question to milk money off the rich owner? I am eager to know). What is any tiny bit left of your country democracy if not even privacy is protected anymore? Of course it would be different if he stands on a podium, or a PC, or doing an interview and making rascist statements. Or if he speaks in the name of the Clippers in a private dinner with witnesses around him...
But it shall not be allowed that manipulated masses can take the law in their hands and thus spit on your founding law. Your country is back to vigilantism. What´s next?
NSA tapes every private conversation, makes it public to get rid of unpleasant persons?

I mean what happened here? A old man was hot tempered because he thought he owns his young gold digger. Ok, that was dumb. No 80 year old should think a young chick loves him solely. She is for his wealth. No more, no less. OTOH, I understand him. He was horny, and couldn´t accept he had to share his toy with others. That led to his explosion. Can happen to anybody. No big deal. The masses made it one. Disgusting.

I'm not sure about California law but in some states (Texas) it's legal to record conversations and those recordings may be used in legal proceedings if at least one of the parties involved know the conversation is being recorded. I'm not completely comfortable with this but in some cases, (spousal abuse, workplace discrimination come to mind) I can definitely see the reason for the law.

 

[Merckx index]

As I understood from "our" press, that was a private conversation. Illegally taped (by the $lut in question to mick money off the rich owner? I am eager to know). What is any tiny bit left of your country democracy if not even privacy is protected anymore? Of course it would be different if he stands on a podium, or a PC, or doing an interview and making rascist statements. Or if he speaks in the name of the Clippers in a private dinner with witnesses around him...

The recording was almost certainly illegal, and whoever did it, presumably Stiviano and maybe some others, should be prosecuted. I expect Sterling to go after them with a vengeance.

But I don't see how that changes anything. Again, this is not a criminal matter. The legality of evidence is not an issue. It doesn't really matter how the conversation became public, once it did, damage was done. Sterling presumably did not become a billionaire by being so naive as to think he could express views on the phone without any chance that they would become public.

If you want to say Sterling was wronged or double-crossed or done dirty, fine. But the brutal fact we all have to recognize is that the line between private and public has eroded considerably in recent years, and the more your job depends on public perception of your views, the more vulnerable you are. If you hold views that if heard by certain ears could threaten your livelihood, maybe you should ask yourself why you want to be in that profession in the first place. I still don't understand why Sterling would want to own a team in a sport dominated by African-Americans, except that it seems he really does have a plantation owner mentality.

By the way, Foxxy, suppose Horner confessed to doping in the Vuelta over a private phone conversation, and it was illegally recorded and made available to USADA. Do you think they should ignore this evidence or pursue a case against him? I'm sure many in the Clinic would be in an uproar, and try to pressure Horner to suspend himself if USADA felt they couldn't act. Are you telling me that you would defend this poor old man?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The legality of the recording is not at issue here. He didn't break the law (though she probably did), so there will be no legal repercussion against him. He's free to go and live his life.

The question becomes, is he good for business? Let's take a different angle to Merckx comments. Let's not look at Sterling as an owner of the Clippers, let's look at him as a partner, steward, or employee if you will, of the NBA. The NBA is going to do what is necessary to protect its business, it's brand. If a partner of that business tarnishes the business, they have a right to oust that partner, which is what they are doing. It has nothing to do with legality.

What is any tiny bit left of your country democracy if not even privacy is protected anymore?

Protected in what way? Legally? It is. As I said, he didn't break the law. No one is saying he did. He has full legal protection here to say whatever he wanted. He can repeat it over and over from a loudspeaker on a hill if he likes, we won't send a single police officer to stop him for his words.

I also ask you, protected from whom? From the owners of the business he is part of? A private business with a set of rules and guidelines? Rules and guidelines he agreed to abide by in all cases?

Again, it's not a legal issue. He can say what he wants with zero repercussion. It's a business issue.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I'm not sure about California law but in some states (Texas) it's legal to record conversations and those recordings may be used in legal proceedings if at least one of the parties involved know the conversation is being recorded. I'm not completely comfortable with this but in some cases, (spousal abuse, workplace discrimination come to mind) I can definitely see the reason for the law.

Oh Jesus if you exist... I didn´t know it´s that bad. It´s not allowed in Germany (yet, but I can see dark clouds looming over our heads. If it´s allowed on your side it will soon be on ours).
The reasons are clear and simple (why it´s not allowed over here): Privacy of words, possibility of manipulation of recordings. But in the end of the day our "law rapists" (speak: corrupt judges) will find ways to implement US "standards", since we are the tail of the dog of US interests. Thank you.
To your last sentence: Reasons always can be found to please one side. They were found for attacking Iraq, they were found to blast away basic standards of peoples rights after 9/11 in the USA... Good night, and good luck.

 

[hfer07]

I didn´t dare to care about this soap opera, but I decided to give my two cents, b/c I can´t believe what I read in german media:

So a owner who made billions with real estate (ethical doubtful), didn´t let minorities live in his owned flats (ethical doubtful), but gets the $hitstorm b/c he offended the hooker who dated him?
Omg, Germany gets all the $hit circa 20 years (sometimes less) later that has its origins in gods own country (McDonalds, Friedman capitalism, shareholder value, surveillance of its people, to name a few things).
So in the land of the free, and of free speech, you can be forced to sell your property and can get boycotted in society, when you have a private conversation thats not to the liking of the manipulated masses? Wow, if even the rich are not protected from political correctness, I wonder what can happen to Average Joe. He is practically without rights.
Nice freedom and democracy. But OTOH its ok if the puppet of his masters (speak Obama) leads a drone war to kill innocent people around the world. No $hitstorm from the masses happens when the average american gets milked more and more in the name of capitalism to make the rich richer, and so on...
All I see in the once great and beautiful country is decadence. It´s time that the USA gets downsized. Nobody wants all the muck from there (gender mainstream, political correctness until one vomits, Friedman imperialism that makes a few rich and let the others suffer), unless you don´t believe in freedom and have no working brain cell left.

And no, I am no racist. What Sterling said is wrong. And I absolutely dislike capitalists who made their money on the back of the poor. But it was a private conversation which leads to robbery of his rights. That is the problem here. It can happen to anyone who says the wrong things or met the wrong gold digger. That is GDR-like. Puke!

+10000

Racial slur/bigotry is no longer a reflection of a serious human issue, but rather a "social, political & economical liability that can be leverage as needed"

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The recording was almost certainly illegal, and whoever did it, presumably Stiviano and maybe some others, should be prosecuted. I expect Sterling to go after them with a vengeance.

OK. So it´s indeed illegal, other than what Patrick said. Maybe the laws just differ in extreme ways from state to state.

Now I never side with creedy owners who got rich on the back of the poor. But for the people in general, I wish him all the luck to prevail in courts over this low lifer Stivano or whatever her name is. Those woman are the lowest standard out there. I don´t mean that they spread their legs for money, that is their private decision. I mean to use political correctness as a weapon, or worse make false allegations (like this low lifer in the Strauss Kahn incident) to gain advantages...

But I don't see how that changes anything. Again, this is not a criminal matter. The legality of evidence is not an issue. It doesn't really matter how the conversation became public, once it did, damage was done. Sterling presumably did not become a billionaire by being so naive as to think he could express views on the phone without any chance that they would become public.

OK, so far, so good... Who recorded the conversation?

If you want to say Sterling was wronged or double-crossed or done dirty, fine.

Seems pretty much the case. Still his problem to this point. He was just done revenge by a clever gold digger.

But the brutal fact we all have to recognize is that the line between private and public has eroded considerably in recent years...

And here starts the problem for all of us. Privacy is no more guaranteed.

...and the more your job depends on public perception of your views, the more vulnerable you are. If you hold views that if heard by certain ears could threaten your livelihood, maybe you should ask yourself why you want to be in that profession in the first place.

And here I disagree. The job should never depend on the liking of masses. I mean does this gay footballer get no NFL contract because the majority in god beliefing Americans think it´s wrong? No he gets one, because his minority rights are protected by those with power who think they own the final truth. If there would be a powerful group like the Feminazis of ACLU protecting free speech at least in privacy, Sterling would have zilch problems...
These double standards and hypocrisy eat away on your once beautiful country inch by inch.

I still don't understand why Sterling would want to own a team in a sport dominated by African-Americans, except that it seems he really does have a plantation owner mentality.

But this owner mentality makes the players mega rich. They just should shut up and do their job. They are no angels either. And I am sure they have their racial slurs when meeting their ghetto buddies. Who sits in the glasshouse...
Oh this hypocrisy. Reminds me of this cry baby of the Dolphins that destroyed the livelihood of Incognito....
I guess Sterling just wanna make more money (this mentality is implemented as soon as another baby is born in the USA), that being the reason to own a club.

By the way, Foxxy, suppose Horner confessed to doping in the Vuelta over a private phone conversation, and it was illegally recorded and made available to USADA. Do you think they should ignore this evidence or pursue a case against him? I'm sure many in the Clinic would be in an uproar, and try to pressure Horner to suspend himself if USADA felt they couldn't act. Are you telling me that you would defend this poor old man?

What he says in privacy is private. Just common sense of a believer in freedom.
If USADA, in this case, got knowledge they should work their a$$es off to get other evidence since they know now their suspicion is true.
I wouldn´t defend Horner. But peoples rights must be defended. It´s almost too late. USA and EU head into police states. It´s 5 minutes to midnight...

 

[Merckx index]

And here I disagree. The job should never depend on the liking of masses. I mean does this gay footballer get no NFL contract because the majority in god beliefing Americans think it´s wrong? No he gets one, because his minority rights are protected by those with power who think they own the final truth. If there would be a powerful group like the Feminazis of ACLU protecting free speech at least in privacy, Sterling would have zilch problems...
These double standards and hypocrisy eat away on your once beautiful country inch by inch.

The cases aren't the same. Being gay is irrelevant to one's performance on the field. At one point, to be sure, people argued that it would cause problems in the locker room, but most of the players themselves now seem comfortable with this. So there is no justification for not allowing gay players.

Being a racist is relevant to one's performance as an owner. This is what people who keep arguing that Sterling's rights were violated seem to miss. The NBA advertises itself as a place where one succeeds solely on merit, where race, ethnicity, etc., don't matter. When Sterling makes statements implying that minorities are inferior--let alone that they shouldn't attend games!--he's being detrimental to the league's stated aims.

But this owner mentality makes the players mega rich. They just should shut up and do their job. They are no angels either. And I am sure they have their racial slurs when meeting their ghetto buddies. Who sits in the glasshouse...

No, what makes the players rich is the huge popularity of the game, such that even a grossly mismanaged Clippers organization (check out its past history) increased in value 50-100 times in the 30 years since Sterling bought it. And while racism of players can be a problem--you remember that Philly Eagle guy last year--it doesn't threaten the league as much as racism by the owner. Again, with more power comes more responsibility and more vulnerability. A rogue owner can do more damage than a rogue player.

Oh this hypocrisy. Reminds me of this cry baby of the Dolphins that destroyed the livelihood of Incognito....

Hypocrisy? This just confirms the point that even players are disciplined when they vent racist views (though in this case it wasn't so much that as bullying). Incognito is now out of the league. How is that hypocrisy? That case also illustrates that it isn't just what the person thinks, what he thinks has an effect on how he acts.

What he says in privacy is private. Just common sense of a believer in freedom.

I don't see how we can ignore someone who intentionally or not provides insights into his character. Again, we're not talking about prosecuting him, we're talking about his qualifications for some job.

If USADA, in this case, got knowledge they should work their a$$es off to get other evidence since they know now their suspicion is true.

We know the likelihood of getting that evidence, don't we?

I wouldn´t defend Horner.

But you're defending Sterling. Would you really be comfortable with Horner continuing to ride? Regardless of what USADA could or could not do, would you defend Horner's right to ride on the grounds that what he said was a private conversation?

But peoples rights must be defended. It´s almost too late. USA and EU head into police states. It´s 5 minutes to midnight...

How far do you want to take this? Suppose Sterling had a private conversation in which he indicated he planned to do something illegal, like rob a bank (in his case, maybe some embezzlement scheme). Should we pretend this conversation never took place? Should we not have any concern at all that he might in fact try to carry out this plan? Because the recording was illegal, maybe he can't be prosecuted for this plan, but would you still think he should be allowed to stay on as owner?

What if he said he would kill the President if he got a chance? Even went into detail as to how he would do it. Still a private conversation? Completely irrelevant to the question of whether he should be owner?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The legality of the recording is not at issue here. He didn't break the law (though she probably did), so there will be no legal repercussion against him. He's free to go and live his life.

It´s a big issue, since these recordings are used to force him out of his property (if he earned it ethically stands on another page), and he gets mass defamation. If that is not touching legal rights, then I don´t know what is...
My common sense tells me, it´s wrong, wrong, wrong... Somebody should stand up and stop this ongoing BS. Sterling is just one case, there are many others. And many don´t have the money to get out of this political correctness wars relative unscathed.

The question becomes, is he good for business? Let's take a different angle to Merckx comments. Let's not look at Sterling as an owner of the Clippers, let's look at him as a partner, steward, or employee if you will, of the NBA. The NBA is going to do what is necessary to protect its business, it's brand. If a partner of that business tarnishes the business, they have a right to oust that partner, which is what they are doing. It has nothing to do with legality.

It basically comes down to legalisation of "mind crimes". Really it can´t get much worse if you have high standards as a free democracy. Again: This was said in privacy, not in a press conference or in the name of the Clippers. I was insulted by blacks in Africa (worse than that hooker Stevino). Why? I might have "forced" them to. If somebody gets annoyed, sometimes the language becomes gutter. If that woman Stevino had any self esteem, she would have take the money, share it with her pimp, and both involved live on unharmed.

Protected in what way? Legally? It is. As I said, he didn't break the law. No one is saying he did. He has full legal protection here to say whatever he wanted. He can repeat it over and over from a loudspeaker on a hill if he likes, we won't send a single police officer to stop him for his words.

If he was protected, the NBA would not even dare to think of trying to rob him of his property. It will be interesting to see how that ends. If Sterling loses, say good bye to your democracy and law. It would not be worth the paper it is written on.

I also ask you, protected from whom? From the owners of the business he is part of? A private business with a set of rules and guidelines? Rules and guidelines he agreed to abide by in all cases?

I am sure privacy is protected in their business deals. Now if the NBA can just like that get rid of a unwelcomed owner, and courts would approve that... Well, as I said before, good night democracy and justice.

Again, it's not a legal issue. He can say what he wants with zero repercussion. It's a business issue.

It is already a legal issue since he is forced to sell (certainly underpriced) his property...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The cases aren't the same. Being gay is irrelevant to one's performance on the field. At one point, to be sure, people argued that it would cause problems in the locker room, but most of the players themselves now seem comfortable with this. So there is no justification for not allowing gay players.
Being a racist is relevant to one's performance as an owner. This is what people who keep arguing that Sterling's rights were violated seem to miss. The NBA advertises itself as a place where one succeeds solely on merit, where race, ethnicity, etc., don't matter. When Sterling makes statements implying that minorities are inferior--let alone that they shouldn't attend games!--he's being detrimental to the league's stated aims.

No case is like the other. You are right. What I did, was just holding up a mirror to show the double standards that make their way to the brains of americans and europeans.
As being gay is irrelevant to on field performance, so is the racsism of a owner. His job is to sell a product for max profit (speak making rich TV deals, selling tickets and merchandise). That being the sole business reason of the NBA. All else is PR speech.
Now it gets difficult.
The gay player may let god believing NFL fans shy away from buying tickets, merchandise, thus harming the income of profit only oriented NFL owners. Now should he be left out b/c he is a minority (gay) like Sterling (racist) may harming a business model? And here comes the big difference: The gay player outed himself on free will. The owner was outed against his will. His privacy was hurt as far as to mass defamation and loss of property. If the same thing happened to the gay player, ACLU would have run wild. You see clearly now how far wrong poltical correctness has brought the western civilization? It´s absurd. I would laugh about it, if it wasn´t so sad...
Now if the NBA indeed would lose income because of racial slurs of one of its owners, they are free to sue the hooker b/c of harming the business. She would have done damage to the NBA model by breaking the law of privacy. She solely would be to blame in this mess.
To get rid of a owner just like that with no harming of the business model, but with breaking the law (protection of privacy) is against all fundamentals of justice and democracy. It´s basically wild west...

No, what makes the players rich is the huge popularity of the game, such that even a grossly mismanaged Clippers organization (check out its past history) increased in value 50-100 times in the 30 years since Sterling bought it. And while racism of players can be a problem--you remember that Philly Eagle guy last year--it doesn't threaten the league as much as racism by the owner. Again, with more power comes more responsibility and more vulnerability. A rogue owner can do more damage than a rogue player.

Now we shift a little off topic, but I am ok with that. I don´t know too much about the NBA, but a thing or two about the NFL. And since the NFL applies the same franchise model as the NBA does, I think it´s ok if I use the NFL as example?
I have to disagree. The players always think they are the reason for the sucsess of their leagues. They are absolutely not. Without the owners they would play for 300 $ a week like the arena football players do. The grounding fathers of the owners did all the work. By implementing a business model that gives them sole command of the market (on shady tactics to say the least, but that is written on another paper), buy gettin g rich TV contracts, by making fans addicted to their merchandise, by making fans addicted to the game (trou rule changes, marketing, and what else). Some players are to dumb to even hold onto 10 millions for five years (see Vince Young). You think they could implement a working league? Good luck... they would fail miserably.
If a player or owner can do more damage is in the open (see Art Schlichter for example). But to shorten the issue, let´s agree it´s 50/50. OK?

Hypocrisy? This just confirms the point that even players are disciplined when they vent racist views (though in this case it wasn't so much that as bullying). Incognito is now out of the league. How is that hypocrisy? That case also illustrates that it isn't just what the person thinks, what he thinks has an effect on how he acts.

And what has that to do with on field performance? You can´t have it both ways. Defending the gay guy on his social life, but condemn the other. All should be equally treated. That´s (a part of) the hypocrisy I am talking about. People are not treated equal. It´s all about political correctness, and now are the times that the normal is abnormal, the right is wrong, the wrong is right. The majority shall bend to the minorities. The low lifers have rights, the attacked have none. Men should behave like Women, Women should make careers like Men, the kids shall be thrown away to kindergardens in the time being. It´s all so grotesque...

Whatever, Martin should have behaved like a man, sort things out with Incognito before running wild like a little cry baby that got stolen his toys.

I don't see how we can ignore someone who intentionally or not provides insights into his character. Again, we're not talking about prosecuting him, we're talking about his qualifications for some job.

Again, there shall be no mind crimes (or call it character crimes if you will) in a democracy. Before everybody wakes up, we live in a world like in "Minority report". Is that what you want? All political correct people should think deep and imagine what they would do if in such a grotesque but live harming situation. It´s time to wake up! Don´t believe the hype!

We know the likelihood of getting that evidence, don't we?

But that´s we have to live with. If there is a private confession or anything, there is ways to bring down a doper. It may takes time, but since LA I am more optimistic than before.

But you're defending Sterling. Would you really be comfortable with Horner continuing to ride? Regardless of what USADA could or could not do, would you defend Horner's right to ride on the grounds that what he said was a private conversation?

I defend the rights of people. OK, I can´t. All I try is to wake up people to fight for their freedom. Sterling is just another example of how bad things got... It´s not too late to do something, but we are close...
About Horner. I would be disgusted (the heck I am already), but I have to live with it. I got trou seven dark Armstrong years. So I am hardened.

How far do you want to take this? Suppose Sterling had a private conversation in which he indicated he planned to do something illegal, like rob a bank (in his case, maybe some embezzlement scheme). Should we pretend this conversation never took place? Should we not have any concern at all that he might in fact try to carry out this plan? Because the recording was illegal, maybe he can't be prosecuted for this plan, but would you still think he should be allowed to stay on as owner?

You get a little too far here. I can only talk of german law. Individual rights are (better say were) careful weighted. If your freedom hinders the freedom of others, it´s time to step in. We can´t finish this issue here w/o writing a book about law.
So I make it short: What did Sterling actually do? What is his crime? He had a private discussion w/o hurting the physically well being of others. If his $lut felt personally offended, she is free to make a report to the police. If he shall fall over this non-issue, and the law doesn´t step in, say goodbye to justice...

What if he said he would kill the President if he got a chance? Even went into detail as to how he would do it. Still a private conversation? Completely irrelevant to the question of whether he should be owner?

See my last paragraph.

 

[patricknd]

i have to agree with foxy to a certain extent. we are all free to have racist, sexist, homophobic etc. views if we choose.
we aren't free to discriminate based on those views. while abhorrent, did his views break league rules (other than the rules of decency)? was he discriminatory in hiring practices, admittance practices etc.? consumers are free to boycott his product, and voice their disgust in that way, and you'd hope that they would if he chooses to fight, but does the league have the rules in place to force him out of ownership? my gut says boot him, but I can't support applying retroactive rules/laws, that goes against everything that's right.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

+10000
...

i have to agree with foxy to a certain extent. ...

Good. I thought I was the only one trying to see behind the face of this mess. There is still hope things swing back to normal one day, when everybody woke up.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I still don't see it quite that way, because the NBA is a private entity of which Sterling is a member. It isn't he has one business, the Knicks have another, the Celtics have another, etc. and they are not inter-connected in any way. They are connected, as they are all part of the NBA.

Let's look at this from another example. Let's pretend Sterling is part owner of an elite private golf club chain. One of 30 owners. Sterling goes out in a bar one day and makes a bunch of racist, nasty comments. Someone has a cell phone and video tapes him, it leaks to YouTube. All of a sudden the golf club is taboo in the worst way. Everyone is threatening to cancel their membership at not just that course, but all other courses owned by the same group. Plus all advertisers there are pulling their money as well. They foresee huge financial losses. So all other 29 owners of the club say they want him to sell his part. Do you think they should be able to get him to agree do that? What if the contract he signed were vague about such a thing? Should he be allowed to keep his portion, even if it forces the club and many of the owners into bankruptcy?

Merckx thing about threatening the Pres doesn't apply, because that actually is illegal. Being a racist, bigoted idiot is not.

But there are other things the NBA could do. For example, he doesn't own the Staples center where his team plays, so they could keep him from attending games. Each of the other teams could keep him from going to their games as well. People were already threatening to boycott, advertisers at the Staples center were threatening to immediately stop advertising. The players themselves had set a plan in motion to not even participate in a playoff game. Is that acceptable to the league as a whole? If the team rapidly loses money (and by proxy the league loses money) by his actions, what rights does the NBA have to protect it's brand? Can it disband his team due to a loss of revenue? Leagues have contracted before. Can it do that with the Clippers? Tell him his team now operates at a loss for the league, and will be disbanded?

I think a real issue may be what actually are the NBA rules about conduct? And what power does the NBA has a whole have over individual teams? Has anyone actually looked them up? That's really what Sterling will be judged on as far as being forced to sell the team (or not). Though his reputation will be ruined either way (already is).

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I see where you come from. Only problems are:
1.) You bar analogy can´t be applied since it´s not a private place. To make racial slurs there is like stepping on a podium to tell the world.
2.) There are no loses (yet). So where is the reason to force him to sell? If loses occur indeed, the low lifer is responsible. She hurt the privacy, thus has to pay for the loses. If she can´t, go for bankrupcy.

 

[ChrisE]

Good. I thought I was the only one trying to see behind the face of this mess. There is still hope things swing back to normal one day, when everybody woke up.

I also agree with you, vs two of my favorite posters Alpe and MI.

Either a ****ed up clock is right twice a day, or I am losing my mind.

 

[patricknd]

I still don't see it quite that way, because the NBA is a private entity of which Sterling is a member. It isn't he has one business, the Knicks have another, the Celtics have another, etc. and they are not inter-connected in any way. They are connected, as they are all part of the NBA.

Let's look at this from another example. Let's pretend Sterling is part owner of an elite private golf club chain. One of 30 owners. Sterling goes out in a bar one day and makes a bunch of racist, nasty comments. Someone has a cell phone and video tapes him, it leaks to YouTube. All of a sudden the golf club is taboo in the worst way. Everyone is threatening to cancel their membership at not just that course, but all other courses owned by the same group. Plus all advertisers there are pulling their money as well. They foresee huge financial losses. So all other 29 owners of the club say they want him to sell his part. Do you think they should be able to get him to agree do that? What if the contract he signed were vague about such a thing? Should he be allowed to keep his portion, even if it forces the club and many of the owners into bankruptcy?

Merckx thing about threatening the Pres doesn't apply, because that actually is illegal. Being a racist, bigoted idiot is not.

But there are other things the NBA could do. For example, he doesn't own the Staples center where his team plays, so they could keep him from attending games. Each of the other teams could keep him from going to their games as well. People were already threatening to boycott, advertisers at the Staples center were threatening to immediately stop advertising. The players themselves had set a plan in motion to not even participate in a playoff game. Is that acceptable to the league as a whole? If the team rapidly loses money (and by proxy the league loses money) by his actions, what rights does the NBA have to protect it's brand? Can it disband his team due to a loss of revenue? Leagues have contracted before. Can it do that with the Clippers? Tell him his team now operates at a loss for the league, and will be disbanded?

I think a real issue may be what actually are the NBA rules about conduct? And what power does the NBA has a whole have over individual teams? Has anyone actually looked them up? That's really what Sterling will be judged on as far as being forced to sell the team (or not). Though his reputation will be ruined either way (already is).

If he signed a contract that lacks stipulations about conduct detrimental to the brand then that's a problem for the league. I would be surprised if there isn't something like that but who knows. In the early days of the film industry actors contracts had to be re-written to include morals clauses when scandals threatened studio product. But since he's an owner and not a player.......

 

[Merckx index]

Merckx thing about threatening the Pres doesn't apply, because that actually is illegal. Being a racist, bigoted idiot is not.

That doesn’t matter. I thought we all agreed that if it’s a private conversation illegally recorded, it can’t be used as evidence for criminal charges. So it doesn't matter whether it's illegal or not. My point is that it can still be used as evidence of character detrimental to the business, just as expression of racist views is such evidence. But Foxxy, if he’s going to be consistent, would have to argue that no, this can’t be used as a basis for stripping Sterling of his ownership. He has a right to have murderous thoughts. There is nothing illegal about having these thoughts, unless they are actually put into practice, just as there is nothing illegal about having racist thoughts, unless they are put into practice.

Another example. Suppose you had a couple of young kids at a day care center. You learn from a private, illegally recorded conversation that the owner of the day care center is a pedophile. He or she hasn’t done anything illegal, but has expressed a sexual interest in underage children. I assume you will pull your kids out immediately. Will you not inform the parents of other children there? Will you not notify government officials?

Again, we’re not talking about criminal charges, we’re talking about someone who has expressed certain views that seem to you to be incompatible with proper running of a particular kind of business. Are you not going to use this evidence simply because it was a private conversation? And because someone has a right to think pedophilic thoughts?

Foxxy might argue that someone with pedophilic views is a serious risk to commit the actual act. Well, someone with racist views is a serious risk to discriminate against minorities. In fact, we know that Sterling has a past history of discriminating, so in this respect he’s actually worse than the pedophile. To make the analogy closer, we should say that owner of the day care center was previously convicted of pedophilia. Are you going to let someone like that run a day care center? If not, why would you allow someone with a past history of discrimination run a professional team where discrimination is supposed to be against the law?

My point is that everyone draws a line somewhere. The idea that you believe in the primacy of protected private conversation falls apart when it’s confronted with a sufficiently strong reason for not protecting that conversation (a point Patrick made when he argued there was a case for recording conversations without permission in some cases).The reason some people are defending Sterling is not just because they’re worried we’re headed to a police state. It’s also because they don’t think expressing racist views is really all that bad for an NBA owner. If you felt that his employees were as threatened by his views as the children are threatened by someone with pedophile views, I doubt very much you would object to his losing ownership. You wouldn't care if it was a private conversation or not, you wouldn't hesitate to use that evidence to conclude that person was not suitable for that position.

Just to be clear, I think the points Foxxy raises are important ones. Mavs owner Mark Cuban has similar fears, worries that this will lead to a slippery slope. But I think there are good reasons for taking a position against discrimination in this case, rather than a position for protection of private speech.

 

[Amsterhammer]

I think I've got this right - California is one of the states where both participants in a phone call must give approval for the call to be recorded. As a European resident, I completely understand Foxxy's privacy reservations. However, the peculiar aspect of this 'case' is that she apparently 'officially' recorded their long conversations as his 'archivist'. The astonishing thing is that he was apparently fully aware that she was recording the call, yet still said what he did - and still hasn't apologized for what he said.

As far as the franchise is concerned, nobody needs to feel sorry for this schmuck. He bought the team for 12.5 million, it is now valued at 500-700 million, depending on who the interested parties might be. If Oprah is one, as has been suggested, the price will go up.

But, so far, he doesn't want to sell. The league is arranging an owner's meeting at short notice, and is busy lobbying to ensure that they have the 75% necessary to force him to sell. I don't claim to know diddly about the NBA, I picked up all this info online in recent days.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The league will vote 29-0 to bar him, especially if the vote is public (or there's any chance it will leak). If it's private and locked into a box, it may only be about 26-3, or we may have a few abstaining votes and get a 25-0 type vote. But it will easily clear the 75% needed.

My point is that everyone draws a line somewhere. The idea that you believe in the primacy of protected private conversation falls apart when it’s confronted with a sufficiently strong reason for not protecting that conversation.

This is where you and I completely agree. As to Mark Cuban, he has said in the past more than one time, if an issue in the NBA doesn't involve the Dallas Mavericks, it's not his concern. Having said that, I'll be really surprised if he doesn't vote with the majority to get rid of Sterling.

However, the peculiar aspect of this 'case' is that she apparently 'officially' recorded their long conversations as his 'archivist'.

It's still a rotten thing that she did. However, birds of a feather...

Originally posted by FoxxyBrown1111
2.) There are no loses (yet). So where is the reason to force him to sell? If loses occur indeed, the low lifer is responsible. She hurt the privacy, thus has to pay for the loses. If she can´t, go for bankrupcy.

If I were another owner, this would not work for me. Why? The day Silver banned Sterling for life, that same day numerous sponsors were ready to pull the plug on all advertising associated with the game. Also, the Golden State Warriors had a plan in place to wait for the jump ball in their playoff game with the Clippers, then walk off the floor and refuse to play. They had scheduled another private players meeting to talk with the Clippers players before the game to get them to do the same, which they likely would have. While in the big picture this is a small amount of lost revenue, it sets the precedent for rapid future revenue losses. Also, while it's legally true we could sue her, pushing her to bankruptcy, that results in massive losses for our league as her bankruptcy does us no good. Though it brings into question how legally binding their relationship was. Hence, could she then sue him, forcing him to pay, under the guise that he knew she was recording him as his "archivist"?

I still want to know what NBA rules are for team owner and team management conduct.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Now Sterling discloses he has cancer. I contacted his people and referred him to Livestrong.

Let the sympathy rehab begin.

 

[Merckx index]

Now Sterling discloses he has cancer. I contacted his people and referred him to Livestrong.

Let the sympathy rehab begin.

Even this news manages to bring up another less than flattering story about Sterling:

In an ironic twist, Sterling refused to pay for prostate-cancer surgery a decade ago for then-Clippers assistant coach Kim Hughes.

“I contacted the Clippers about medical coverage and they said the surgery wouldn’t be covered,” Hughes told The Journal Times of Racine, Wis., in 2011.

“They said if they did it for one person, they’d have to do it for everybody else.”

Four Clippers players chipped in to cover the $70,000 cost.

If he should die before the issue is resolved, though, and pass it on to a family member, I think the NBA may still want the member to sell. But that could be an easier thing for the member to do, because s/he won’t have to pay anywhere close to the capital gains taxes that Sterling would face.

Would you believe…? The NBA tried to force Sterling out way back in 1982. He was making a mess of finances even then, so badly that he forced his players to fly coach, though that was specifically forbidden in their contracts.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Even this news manages to bring up another less than flattering story about Sterling:



If he should die before the issue is resolved, though, and pass it on to a family member, I think the NBA may still want the member to sell. But that could be an easier thing for the member to do, because s/he won’t have to pay anywhere close to the capital gains taxes that Sterling would face.

Would you believe…? The NBA tried to force Sterling out way back in 1982. He was making a mess of finances even then, so badly that he forced his players to fly coach, though that was specifically forbidden in their contracts.

Good grief;

The Donald Sterling scandal has reached Congress.

San Fernando Valley Congressman Tony Cardenas introduced legislation Thursday that would prevent sports team owners from writing off fines as a business expense on their federal income tax returns.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-donald-sterling-clippers-congress-20140501,0,547116.story#ixzz30WryZRLS


Apparently they have run out of things to do in DC.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Millionairs attacking those who pay their salaries, who then hit back. A mass rumble in the jungle. All those included should have been forced to sell their properties and never have been allowed to step into a NBA arena. I mean the whole violent incident was diametrical to what the NBA stands for ("a place where one succeeds solely on merit")*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFK9C5VUSK0



(* I am just kidding... holding up a mirror. You know... double standards, absurd comparisons, etc.)

 

[RetroActive]

The girlfriend is basically trash from all I can tell. But that doesn't excuse him.

His fighting this will do him no good. Look at it this way. He can drag it out all right, but his life is basically ruined. He won't be allowed to attend any games, any team functions. Anyone who recognizes him anywhere is likely to refuse service to him. That means no box seats at Dodger games. No tickets to the symphony, no special meal in the private are of the restaurant. He goes out in public people who recognize him are likely to stare, point fingers, some may even let into him. He'd even run the risk of being assaulted, or worse. So he can hold onto the team as long as he can as it's legal owner. He can have his billions of dollars, but he has to do so alone.

The only path out of this for him is the opposite of how he seems to have have lived his life. That is to be humble and contrite. To profusely apologize, admit he was wrong and shameful, and agree to sell the team as soon as possible.

He should sell the team and move to Israel. He'd have no problems there plus he might be able to make some business from the billions the US sends in aid every year. I'm all for win/win scenarios for the likes of the Sterlings.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

More basketball... Even though the NBA can´t be blamed here.
Winning at all cost. Lower than LA ever went. People should get outraged over such things in the sports world. Not over non issues that happen privately between a senile old man and his hooker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMNBXU1rP9M

I can´t help myself but it seems americans (more than europeans to my surprise) can get distracted (and manipulated into one direction) easily from real problems with gossip non issues. That is highly dangerous, b/c they will fall into every trap... I wouldn´t be surprised if puppet Obama sells another war to them, even if it would be thermo nuclear near/or in Russia/Ukraine.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Foxxy might argue that someone with pedophilic views is a serious risk to commit the actual act.

I would argue so. But to know that, this sick person needs to talk about it. Mind crimes do not (yet) exist (even though NSA, CIA and other gangster organisations wish for. It will happen sooner or later. Don´t worry)...
Once the guy does indeed talk about it (being in privacy or not), the law has its rights to prevent such guy from doing harm to kids. Same as the law has its rights to prevent murder or other serious crime if planned for. In our law, the freedom is (still a little bit at least) protected until you do not harm the freedom of others. Professors of law write books about it. I won´t. The lines are still strict. Which is vital for free and democratic countries. But the more minority organisations like the Feminazis of ACLU, or the mentally ill people that advertise gender mainstream, will soften this rules, the easier we head into police states. If freedom of speech is restricted to only allow thoughts or express thoughts that fit to the self-proclaimed owners of the "final truth", say good bye freedom, hello dictatorship. You seriously want that?

My point is that everyone draws a line somewhere.

And that lines had been drawn, and the USA lived very well with it. What´s next? Our kids are thought being gay is good. Some people are against it. Should they be stripped of their jobs and properties just b/c they do the serious mind crime of thinking different than the new wave minorities? In the GDR you booked barred windows for a long time if speaking negatively of Honecker in privacy. You want that? You love a world of robots, instead of free minds? I hope not...
Sterling and similar cases (in lower ranked society) we don´t know of, are just the beginning... Be aware of what you wish for...