By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - NBA bans Donald Sterling for life, fines him $2.5 million

jacks81x said:
mornelithe said:

As far as setting a precedent, it seems part of big business already to me.  Anything that can tarnish, hurt, harm, or ruin your companies reputation, make sponsors/investors hesistent to join in, and make fans stop watching etc... is actionable.  


That's fine.  Then don't be hypocrites about it.  Don't stand up and claim that you support diversity and make this into a moral social issue when it's really just about money.  

Well, the 'NBA' as an entity would act out of self-preservation, that doesn't mean that the individual people who comprise that entity, don't find the remarks reprehensible, or that they simply don't want that kind of element in their club.  But yeah, it should be blatantly obvious that the biggest concern for the commissioner of the league and the league to move to preserve theri public image as quickly as possible to keep the sport/industry moving forward.  It's what he's hired to do.



Around the Network
jacks81x said:

I agree with what Mark Cuban said about the slippery slope that forcing Sterling to sell the team would cause.  A person has the right to be a moron or a bigot.  What he says in the privacy of his own home is his own business. 

And the NBA, as a private company, has an equal right to kick him out for it. Companies can, and do, routinely fire employees/eject partners based on similar fact patterns. Leaving Sterling in would likely have a huge impact on the NBA's bottom line. Why would they not have the right to do this?



Kasz216 said:

Because it's very standard legal precedence.  If you are fighting a fine like that, generally any penalty for not paying that fine is on hold.  Think about if that wasn't the case...

Here's another thought I just had, the fine, the ban, and the forced sale are technically separate penalties, because the forced sale requires a 3/4 vote by the league, therefore it's not effective immediately (whereas, the former are).  Couldn't Silver simply delay the vote for 30 days, until just after the fine deadline?  Or could it even be argued in court that they're separate penalties and therefore any injuction wouldn't apply?



Kane1389 said:
badgenome said:
Well, that's interesting...

If you can be suspended from owning something, do you in fact own it?

If he's banned for life, anyway, what motive is there for him to pay this fine?

Going forward, will players who say sexist or homophobic things face a lifetime ban?


Of course they will. This is a serious issue. Its not something minor like stealing, selling ,owning and doing illegal drugs and firemarms, or having rape/murder accusations, every professional athlete can get away with that shit. But THIS, its a whole other story

lol. this



 

Richard_Feynman said:

That was supposed to be a private conversation. He'll definitely win the court case.


But also, I didn't find those comments to be so extremely racist as some people say they are. I'm sure many white guys would feel uncomfortable if their girlfriends showed up at their job with different black guys all the time. It's just a little weird. Maybe he's a racist, I don't know, but those comments arent' as detestful as is being proclaimed.


I don't really get it.


Yeah, If the girlfriend was showing up with different white guys all the time, that I could understand but showing up with different black guys is definitely "weird."

And I don't realy get how him not thinking his girlfriend should associate with black people is all that detesful either. What's so wrong with that?

You're right, maybe he isn't a racst. Who really knows.

 

...

Are you fucking kidding me with that post?



Around the Network
Play4Fun said:

Are you fucking kidding me with that post?


Sorry. I edited that post as soon as I posted it and filled it with a blank. Unfortunately for me VGChartz doesn't allow that so I didn't realize that the post was still there. I tried clearing it because I'm sure my post would be seen as something deplorable; so I'll just keep this opinion for myself.



He's a racist douchebag, but a lifetime ban seems excessive, considering that worse offenders of the same or other fault got away with less harsh punishments.
The tape trancript makes him look like he almost feels obliged by his culture and environment to be racist, and this mob behaviour is curious and cowardly, to say the least, in one that's supposed to be a leader, not a pawn.
Again, about the punishment: I agree about the fine, about forcing him to sell the team as normal relationships with its members will be impossible from now on, and I agree about banning him for a time long enough to force him to reconsider his mentality, attitude and behaviour, but it's the lifetime duration of the ban that disturbs me.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


badgenome said:
Well, that's interesting...

If you can be suspended from owning something, do you in fact own it?

If he's banned for life, anyway, what motive is there for him to pay this fine?

Going forward, will players who say sexist or homophobic things face a lifetime ban?

Ownership rights are never absolute. Govts can exercise eminent domain on your property because they want to build a road or a secret military base. You get paid market value (as determined by them) and your only recourse is to go to the courst to get a better price, but you can't stop them buying your property unless you can prove to the courts that the road, or secret military base doesn't have to go there. And you can be banned from owning animals, and any animals you own be taken away from you, if you have been shown to mis-treat them.

But that's not the point here. This guy still owns the Clippers, he doesn't have to sell and the NBA can't make him sell. But if he doesn't sell it becomes a worthless entity. Even he isn't rich enough that $600 million becoming $6 million isn't going to sting.

If the NBA has a charter, and that charter includes provisions for penalties for prejudicial behaviour in relation to race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc, then I suppose players coaches and other affiliated people can and would face sanctions up to and including lifetime bans. If the NBA has no such charter then one wonders what the basis for the ban of this guy is, other than we don't like what he said and we don't want to associate with him any more, and whether the NBA is on reasonable legal footing in taking the action it has.

How much might money talk I wonder? If Sterling were to offer all of the players double their current salary to keep playing for him, would players decide to forget what they know?

Disappointed that you used the G.F. phrase in a non-ironic way.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo said:
badgenome said:
Well, that's interesting...

If you can be suspended from owning something, do you in fact own it?

If he's banned for life, anyway, what motive is there for him to pay this fine?

Going forward, will players who say sexist or homophobic things face a lifetime ban?

Ownership rights are never absolute. Govts can exercise eminent domain on your property because they want to build a road or a secret military base. You get paid market value (as determined by them) and your only recourse is to go to the courst to get a better price, but you can't stop them buying your property unless you can prove to the courts that the road, or secret military base doesn't have to go there. And you can be banned from owning animals, and any animals you own be taken away from you, if you have been shown to mis-treat them.

But that's not the point here. This guy still owns the Clippers, he doesn't have to sell and the NBA can't make him sell. But if he doesn't sell it becomes a worthless entity. Even he isn't rich enough that $600 million becoming $6 million isn't going to sting.

If the NBA has a charter, and that charter includes provisions for penalties for prejudicial behaviour in relation to race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc, then I suppose players coaches and other affiliated people can and would face sanctions up to and including lifetime bans. If the NBA has no such charter then one wonders what the basis for the ban of this guy is, other than we don't like what he said and we don't want to associate with him any more, and whether the NBA is on reasonable legal footing in taking the action it has.

How much might money talk I wonder? If Sterling were to offer all of the players double their current salary to keep playing for him, would players decide to forget what they know?

Disappointed that you used the G.F. phrase in a non-ironic way.


The NBA charter says they can.



Kasz216 said:


The NBA charter says they can.

Is it that they can force him to sell, or that they can strip him of his ownership interest, or that they can simply boot the Clippers out of the league without voluntary ("voluntary") compliance? It reads like he can be divested with a 3/4 vote, but I'm not sure if that's just the press simplifying.