Banned for life

[Dioltach]

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

Of course they can. But the more homogenous the group, the more likely it is that the members will be tolerant toward each other.

 

[Kramodlog]

Of course they can. But the more homogenous the group, the more likely it is that the members will be tolerant toward each other.

They are all rich, seems pretty homogenous.

 

[Dioltach]

They are all rich, seems pretty homogenous.

Duh, I meant heterogenous.

 

[Cor Azer]

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

Sacre bleu!

Didn't say that.

People had to make an effort to go to Chick-Fil-A instead of their usual MacDonalds, White Castle, or where ever (not being American, I dunno their main competitors). Doing so long term takes a lot more motivation than most people are willing to muster if the issue doesn't directly affect them.

 

[jasper]

Ok, since the NBA has said any bigot comments gets you banned for life and this is zero tolerance issue. Will they follow it up if a player, coach, employee put their foot in their mouth?

 

[Umbran]

Ok, since the NBA has said any bigot comments gets you banned for life and this is zero tolerance issue.

I haven't seen the NBA make that statement. The NBA Commissioner has taken an action in this one specific case, and I haven't seen any statement of a new policy as you suggest here.

Sterling is a very high-profile individual, and we should expect the commissioner to come down on him more heavily than lower-ranking people.

 

[jasper]

I haven't seen the NBA make that statement. The NBA Commissioner has taken an action in this one specific case, and I haven't seen any statement of a new policy as you suggest here.

Sterling is a very high-profile individual, and we should expect the commissioner to come down on him more heavily than lower-ranking people.

That is in general what he said.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I'm not an expert, but you'll find plenty of people saying otherwise. To say that there wasn't sufficient evidence to win a legal case against someone who is rich and a lawyer is not the same thing as saying there was insufficient evidence for institutional discipline. The NBA's rules give the commissioner very broad authority; he isn't bound by the rules of the judicial system.

Moreover, as I stated, that sounds like a case of "hear no evil, see no evil". I find it entirely plausible that if this girlfriend of his got these statements on tape, if the NBA had rigorously investigated the serious allegations by some former players and coaches associated with him, they would have found something indicating that he held bigoted views and mistreated people.

If you're gonna take action against someone for something they did then you best have evidence they did it. When that case came out, there was no evidence beyond some people saying some stuff.

Do I think he did what they said he did? Most likely. My assumption, however, should never be evidence enough. That goes for yours and everyone elses', too.

However, somewhat separately, there is an abundance of evidence that he did a terrible job running the team; which in and of itself should have been enough reason to get rid of him. That's NBA business. As is often the case, his high stature shielded him from the consequences of incompetence. Even if he was not a racist, isn't having the lowest winning percentage in the league enough reason for the league to want to get rid of him? There are several sports owners who seem to have decided that losing is profitable, which is bad for the sport. In sports, you're supposed to try to win. That's the sort of thing the commissioners of the various leagues are empowered to stop. For example, Miami Marlins fans would certainly like to be rid of their owner. Heck, we in DC would be happy to be rid of Dan Snyder (also for a mix of business and personal reasons). It's ironic that this is happening just as the team is becoming a legitimate competitive basketball team.

Well, there's some NBA political stuff there. It helped the other owners that this guy was fielding a loser and couldn't draft to save his life. They liked it. Plus his unwillingness to move out of LA's spotlight gave two NBA teams to a city with no more football. There's reasons that his craptastic ownership was tolerated.

I feel ya on the bad owners, though. I'm a Cleveland fan.

I don't think this will ruin him. I also think it's entirely fair that if he ruins the league's image, the league can get rid of him. Again, this is business, not criminal justice. People get fired for saying less objectionable things than this all the time. You can make business decisions for a broad variety of reasons. The same thing, for example, was said about Hank Williams when he was booted from Monday Night Football, and the answer is the same. He has a right to free speech, including objectionable speech, but that can have social and financial consequences independent of the criminal justice system.

Yeah, I must have been drunk when I wrote 'ruin him'. Wow ... I really don't know what I was thinking.

Again, I understand the league's prerogative and rights here. I just think they took this too far.

As far as the right to say what you want but not be punished, well, that's a defacto limit on that right, isn't it? It's not free speech if someone can take something away from you for what you say.

I also suspect that his one damning statement is being used as a proxy for a long record of bad behavior that was never punished before. Comeuppance.

I'm sure that played a part. It's also a new commissioner looking to make his bones.

He hasn't been accused of any crime. I think the business decision by the league fits the bad decisions he made. It seems clear that the league acted within its constitution, which all its member owners signed on to.

That was a turn of phrase. And, again, I'm not saying the league did anything it wasn't allowed to do.

It doesn't matter. Now it is public. He can sue if he wants. If you did not think/speak ill of black folk, he wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

Hell yeah it matters. It wasn't for public dissemination. Context matters a lot.

It has an impact on the image of the NBA, whether what he said was related to it or not (well it was a bit, since he asked not to bring black folk to games).

Context. He didn't say he didn't want black fans to buy tickets, he told the woman he pays to be his companion he'd appreciate it if she refrained from bringing certain people to the games. He never said they couldn't buy their own tickets.

[/I]It doesn't matter. Image doesn't bother with criminal guilt. What he said was pretty damaging for the brand though.

That it was.

I'm sure you have many black friends.

I do, but since I was asked not to bring them to these forums ...

Maybe petition your law makers to protect bigotted speach?

It's supposed to be Constitutionally protected right now. This ain't Canadia.

It depends on the state. In Texas, it is legal to record a conversation as long as at least one participant knows it is being recorded.

As for the Clippers' owner, he's a real estate guy who'd been sued over discriminatory practices against minorities. This pretty much clinches that the guy is a racist, rather than a guy who said the N-word when he should have known better.

As for being banned for life, that is I guess the consequence for offending a large enough demographic. And given his wealth and power, what other punishment would have been sufficient? heck, he'll get to sell his share of the team and make money on his way out, no doubt.

Whoa, being sued does not mean you're guilty. The Duke lacrosse team would probably vouch for that.

I mean, the guy is a racist - I don't doubt that. My issue is that if he wasn't racist in his behavior towards employees and customers, so what? His stupid ideas aren't causing any actual harm. It's like having a super religious science teacher. They may believe that the Earth is only 6k years old or whatever but so long as they aren't teaching kids that inside the classroom, who cares? It doesn't matter a whit.

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.

Again, I'm not arguing that the NBA didn't have a right to do what they did.Sponsors dropping his team is what should happen, though. That's how this stuff needs to work.

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.

And this is the problem with making private conversations public: People refuse to consider the context. As I explained ot goldo above, he wasn't saying that Magic Johnson couldn't come to his games or buy tickets to them. He never said black people shouldn't show up or that they should be refused service. That's not even close to what he said and yet that's the way it's being presented. I have to wonder how many of the outraged folks out there even know what they're outraged about.

Read the transcript. He may be racist as hell but he never once suggests that black people aren't welcome at his games or that they should be refused admittance or service or anything like that. He was telling his paid companion what guests he'd appreciate her no longer bringing to the games. That's not a paying customer, it's a comped fan. Comped with his money.

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.

Not just that. This racist should also have been forced to read out loud Dan Gilbert's whiney letter about LeBron until his tongue fell out, too.

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.[/I]
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?

As I said before, if Doc Rivers wants to say f-you and refuse to come back, if his players want to do more than wear their jerseys inside out and instead all bail as soon as they're able or refuse to play until they're traded, if the concession workers all walk out and quit, if the fans cancel their season tickets and refuse to show up, if the fans at home refuse to watch a game, well that's great. That's how this should play out. They're adults who can - and should have the right to - make their own decisions.

We need to tread very carefully when we punish people for what they say instead of what they do.

Yeah, ruin him, right.[/quoe]

Yeah, I must have been drunk.

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."

See my explanation above as to why the suck is not a valid reason to boot the guy. And yeah, 'ruin' was a really dumb word to choose.

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.

Ok, that's great. So what's next? What thing as a people do we decide that we do or don't like should we force everyone else to like or not or be punished in some way?

Had he done something racist this would be different. He didn't. Nobody was even actually banned from the facility. He told her not to bring people but never said they'd be physically prevented from entering the arena. The bottom line is that we've seen no proof he did anything at all.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I haven't seen the NBA make that statement. The NBA Commissioner has taken an action in this one specific case, and I haven't seen any statement of a new policy as you suggest here.

Sterling is a very high-profile individual, and we should expect the commissioner to come down on him more heavily than lower-ranking people.

Lower ranking people? Like the vastly famous people who play the game? The guys who everyone can recognize? They've had players say some awful things about gays and they did nothing. This is about a new commissioner looking to make his name.

 

[Umbran]

As far as the right to say what you want but not be punished, well, that's a defacto limit on that right, isn't it? It's not free speech if someone can take something away from you for what you say.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...". The NBA is not a branch of the US government

Sterling willingly did business with the NBA, and thereby personally and willfully agreed to their rules and rulings.

It's supposed to be Constitutionally protected right now.

See above - the right to free speech is actually the right to not have the *government* shut you up. It does not protect you from cheesing off private individuals, or making yourself a PR liability to your business partners.

His stupid ideas aren't causing any actual harm.

On the contrary - his stupid behaviors are now threatening to make advertisers drop the team in droves. His stupid ideas are having an impact on the reputation and business of the NBA, thought possible player walkout. Sounds like harm to the business to me.

Lower ranking people? Like the vastly famous people who play the game? The guys who everyone can recognize? They've had players say some awful things about gays and they did nothing.

Most players will be gone in short order - pro-athlete careers are short. Owners can be around a long, long time - Sterling's owned the team since the 1980s. Players are not expected to impact policy, either, while owners are.

Also, I should ask - did those players say those things during *this* commissioner's tenure, specifically? If he's new, he may not have had power over the incidents in question, and claims that there is a double standard would then not be well-based.