Banned for life

[Kramodlog]

I do not understand how they fine him and ban him. The ability to be fined by a private organization is contingent on being a member. They are making him a non-member, so how are they still fining him?

The magic of contracts, probably.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He has not been divested of ownership, so he is still a mamber of the organization. It's like being a player who is fined and on indeterminated suspension from his pro league. Unless he actually leaves, he's bound.

And if he left and tried to return, he'd remain under the same restrictions' assuming they let him back in.

 

[Umbran]

As they also made the tape public and recording someone without their knowledge is illegal...

That varies. The relevant Federal law is one-party consent. Some states also only require one party consent, some states require consent of all parties involved, and I don't think we know what state he was in when the recording was made.

Edit: Oops. Janx beat me to it.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

That said, I find it sort of odd that they'd ban him and try to force him out for not doing anything other that saying something terrible in a private conversation.

A bunch of advertisers dropped the Clippers yesterday or the day before. He has damaged the image of the NBA, and the owners I would say, with his remarks - private as they may have been. I believe it's in the contract that the owners have to sign that they have protect the image of the NBA.

 

[Cor Azer]

On the flip side, you got business like Chick filet or whatever who supports homophobia and gets business because of it.

I don't have a link handy, but turns out - not so much. Sure, they had a big bump right after the incident, but supportive people went back to their usual fast food habits pretty quickly, but the boycotters didn't, so net sales are down for Chick-Fil-A.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Regardless, nothing he said had anything to do with his business.

Sure it does. He mentions, or at least refers to, Magic Johnson ad bringing black people to the games. The games are the business - or at least part of it. And as has been pointed out before, it's a pretty bad hit to the NBA brand when an owner of an organization where ~78% of players are black says such things about black people. Hell, he even mentions the black players on the call.

So's criminal behavior and yet they rarely act on that. I get it's PR but, to me, it's awful flimsy precedent to force a financial penalty on someone of this scale - and I don't mean $2.5 million.

So you think they should have forced him to watch LeBron's "decision" until his eyes exploded, and he bled to death? You're a cruel person, ZB.

We need to remember that there is no evidence whatsoever that he acted toward employees or customers in the way he spoke in that private conversation.

Sure, it was a private conversation, but so what? That doesn't change what he said. It also became a public conversation once it was released. Would you, if you were a black player or fan, trust that this guy, who has a history of discrimination in his business dealings, to not discriminate against you? Do you think it would affect the way other players and/or fans see the Clippers and the NBA when it comes to tickets or whatever? How about employees of the Clippers that aren't players? Would you expect that an employee who gets passed for a promotion, and happens to be a minority, to think that it has nothing to do with the way this guy sees minorities? Sure, he may be a different kind of racist - one that says racist things, but doesn't act on them - but it doesn't really matter. He severely damaged the trust the players and the fans, and other employees have of him and the NBA by association. Whether or not he has actually discriminated against employees or fans doesn't really matter. He lost that credibility, and now a lot of things are going to be seen through the lens of this guy being a racist.

The answer to that question is remarkably simple: There was no evidence whatsoever to any wrongdoing - especially concerning NBA business - by him. He was taken to court over discriminatory practices in his other business but never for anything NBA related. He also wasn't convicted of any wrongdoing nor was he ordered to pay any compensation. He did settle but that's not an indication of guilt which is why - especially, again, considering the fact that this had nothing to do with basketball - the league did nothing.

Just imagine if this phone recording had come out at the time of his discrimination. What do you think would have been the outcome then?

It's easy to condemn someone for something they say. We need to remember, though, that pretty much all of us have said some heinous poo of one sort or another during our lifetimes. It's unfair to ruin someone for something they said - especially in America. Again: said, not did. That's an important distinction we seem all to willing to forget these days.

Yeah, ruin him, right.
Seriously, the Clippers aren't his entire business. In fact, you have to take into consideration the Clippers record since this guy bought them. That record has been super suctastic. t wasn't until three or so years ago that they started to actually play basketball. Before that, they played the role of tomato cans. This guy has been a terrible owner for the almost 30-something years. Getting rid of him is the best thing that could happen for the Clippers. And by the way, if he is forced to sell them, he'll bank somewhere between 500 and 700 million dollars. For that kind of money, you can ruin me all you want. I'll let you record me saying things that'll make the KKK go "Woah buddy, that's just a bit too much hate there."

I hate coming off like I'm defending some racist - I'm not. All I'm trying to say is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I understand the NBA's actions, understand the organization's right to those actions and really don't care all that much that some racist moron is gonna lose something he cares about. I do, however, have an issue with the precedent this sort of thing sets.

The precedent this will set is to put owners on notice that this kind of hate isn't allowed. That seems to be a pretty good precedent to set.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And let's be honest- the NBA isn't an all white Protestant men's club anymore. There's one black guy, a few Jewish people, an Indian, a Lebanese/Greek owner, and a woman among them now, so it's not like they're going to be as tolerant of this attitude as it may have been in past eras.

As for the comparison between his words and the criminal acts of pro athletes, you're right: there is a double standard. But fans (and sponsors) are still a lot more forgiving of criminal activity of those who directly contribute to the successes and failures of the teams than they are of the foibles and failures of the people who rake in the big bucks.

...the guys who threaten to move teams if there isn't a new arena (to increase/maintain profitability)

...and still fail to field winning or even competent teams while the city struggles repaying the bond or the sales tax bump that built the LAST stadium...

...while ticket prices increase on a predictable schedule.

Etc.

 

[Kramodlog]

And let's be honest- the NBA isn't an all white Protestant men's club anymore. There's one black guy, a few Jewish people, an Indian, a Lebanese/Greek owner, and a woman among them now, so it's not like they're going to be as tolerant of this attitude as it may have been in past eras.

You're assuming "minorities" and women can't be racist too.

 

[Kramodlog]

I don't have a link handy, but turns out - not so much. Sure, they had a big bump right after the incident, but supportive people went back to their usual fast food habits pretty quickly, but the boycotters didn't, so net sales are down for Chick-Fil-A.

Chick-Fil-A isn't fast food!?

Sacre bleu!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You're assuming "minorities" and women can't be racist too.

No, I'm not. I know several racist women (including my own white-hating aunt.). But given the history of that particular owner and her family, its unlikely that she is a racist.

Besides, Sterling's commentary didn't exactly come off as female-friendly either...







(FWIW, you could have also made a similar assertion about me assuming Jews couldn't be racist, but Sterling clearly demonstrated that isn't the case...and again, my personal experiences would also prevent me from making that assumption.)