mrags Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 He didn't make any public statements. He allegedly made private statements, which were illegally recorded. private is private. It's not like he made a statement in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Ralph would roll over if he knew a pro sports owner did this. - IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 its an interesting spot - for the nba to dole out the harshest punishment allowed for a conversation that took place behind closed doors, was opinion and not proof of some other action, and may have been illegally taped.... im not defending the guy or his opinions, but will say its an interesting territory to wade into. if an owner speaks out against gay marriage does he get punished, for instance? do players face punishment for private views? I'm not saying I agree with what he says, cause the guy is a dick, but to be forced into a situation. I just don't agree with it. There are lots of varying opinions in the world. You pointed to a great one, gay marriage, should we start policing what people say about that? What about if someone makes a comment about a religion they don't agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 im well aware, and posted several in the OTW thread But your post at least implied that this action was taken because of an isolated incident of one private conversation. I very much doubt this would have been the penalty if this was the first inkling of any racism from an NBA owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There have been numerous allegations and numerous lawsuits against Sterling over the years concerning racism. very well aware. as i said, not defending him at all, but discussing what this opens up as a policy - both from a scope of content (can an owner donate to a fund that furthers anti-gay marriage policy for example?) and based on source (what happens if a player, or team exec makes a racial comment?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 He didn't make any public statements. He allegedly made private statements, which were illegally recorded. I'm shocked you're defending him. Shocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) A) He's a very public employee of the NBA. What he does on his free time, effects his job, and the NBA as a whole. So it's entirely relevant. B) Having the opinion that black people aren't good enough to be in your presence, but are good enough to be in your employment (or as property, heh) is not far from attending white power rallies, imo. The NBA has every right to protect it's brand, and that includes not associating, or employing people who harm that brand on "their own time". A) A public employee does not nullify the right to privacy, see your Constitutional Law books for that one...and it's not that the story is irrelevant, it's that the actions taken by the NBA are improper. B) I agree that his opinions are dispicable and he should feel consequences as a result, see all my posts prior....just not by the NBA. They should have issued a statement and bowed out and reminded people that private conversations are considered between two people.....and um, "not far from attending white power rallies" is very different....trust me when I tell you, having lived part of my life in the Deep South, Sterling's comments are atrocious, but they pale in comparison to the vitriol of hate that stews through those rallies...I've never attended, but I've unfortunately heard about them and heard people talk about them, 25 to 30 years ago, but it is very different....sad and it makes my stomach turn to think of the hatred, but they're very different. If you truly feel this way, then you haven't had even a second-hand view of them...it's ignorance at its highest (or lowest) level. Edited April 30, 2014 by BigBuff423 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Marge Schott was in a similar situation (twice) when she was the majority owner of the Reds. She was suspended twice and wound up selling her part of the team with a third suspension pending. Bet a dollar Sterling fights this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) But your post at least implied that this action was taken because of an isolated incident of one private conversation. I very much doubt this would have been the penalty if this was the first inkling of any racism from an NBA owner. fair enough - i think my post got chopped up a bit. i suppose id return volley that before this week he was in line to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP and i dont think the nba opted to discipline at all for prior incidents. its an interesting situation, when you pull the hot button emotional reaction out. again, not defending him, just discussing the concept of levying the harshest punishment the league allows here. how they handled him in the past and his lack of prior discipline (that i know of) also of interesting debate. Edited April 29, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 very well aware. as i said, not defending him at all, but discussing what this opens up as a policy - both from a scope of content (can an owner donate to a fund that furthers anti-gay marriage policy for example?) and based on source (what happens if a player, or team exec makes a racial comment?) If the NBA as a company feels that an owner does significant damage to the brand, then I don't see what the big deal is with the NBA ousting them. If the owner doesn't like it, then take the NBA to court, and we'll see what sort of agreements the owner made in order to become an owner in the first place. I highly suspect that Sterling agreed to "behave" and represent the NBA in the best of manners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Nobody said he can't have those views, he just has to deal with the consequences of them when they are made public Which, if you read my original post and then my response, I AGREED with you....but consequences through public forum and demonstrated through business, the very thing he is in, NOT by the NBA who should have remained an active observer but relatively unengaged in the matter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 ...just not by the NBA. They should have issued a statement and bowed out and reminded people that private conversations are considered between two people..... You believe that the NBA as a business should just issue a statement and walk away? Why so they can watch the bigger picture for them( the league) take a massive hit not only from a PR side but financially as well, not to mention the damage to it's reputation? I'm not sure I see how that makes sense for them to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 fair enough - i think my post got chopped up a bit. i suppose id return volley that before this week he was in line to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP and i dont think the nba opted to discipline at all for prior incidents. its an interesting situation, when you pull the hot button emotional reaction out. again, not defending him, just discussing the concept of levying the harshest punishment the league allows here. The lifetime achievement award has been a sham and an issue for years. I'm sure you know that, too. He keeps on giving money to them. The NAACP looks almost as bad as Sterling does in this, especially in Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 If the NBA as a company feels that an owner does significant damage to the brand, then I don't see what the big deal is with the NBA ousting them. If the owner doesn't like it, then take the NBA to court, and we'll see what sort of agreements the owner made in order to become an owner in the first place. I highly suspect that Sterling agreed to "behave" and represent the NBA in the best of manners. i understand - and im not 100% familiar with the high level intricacies of the nba bylaws. im sure theres some sort of broad catch all conduct statement. im curious if he will go quietly and enjoy his time, or if he will fight this long term and publicly as he clearly does have some skeletons from his past AND worries about perception.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Security Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Well, the NFL itself is a not for profit, is the NBA like that too? If so, then you have no choice but to do this to Sterling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 So much for free speech. Bring home the Braves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) You believe that the NBA as a business should just issue a statement and walk away? Why so they can watch the bigger picture for them( the league) take a massive hit not only from a PR side but financially as well, not to mention the damage to it's reputation? I'm not sure I see how that makes sense for them to do that. Because, the natural order of things would have taken its course...for the NBA to take any form of action against what an owner does or says in private, assuming it's not illegal, is tantamount to an abuse of power IMO...the NBA could have stood behind the players and said something like, "We are outraged by Mr. Sterlings comments and saddened that such an event would occur during the most exciting time of our season. However, he does NOT represent the views or beliefs of the NBA as an entity or the rest of the owners as a whole. The players of the NBA are valued partners in our endeavor to broaden our reach to fans and believe our players are not just capable of great athletic feats on the court, but of great character in their communities. We ask the fans of the NBA to make their protests known and express their displeasure and opinions regarding Mr. Sterling's comments directly to him and those who represent him. In the meantime, the NBA will begin a formal investigation to determine if any abuse of power by Mr. Sterling, or any professional improprieties have occurred while Mr. Sterling has owned the L.A. Clippers and publish the results of those findings as soon as they are available"....boom, message sent and Constitutional freedoms not infringed while Mr. Sterling would certainly feel the pressure....appropriate response is the key. IMHO Edited April 29, 2014 by BigBuff423 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) The lifetime achievement award has been a sham and an issue for years. I'm sure you know that, too. He keeps on giving money to them. The NAACP looks almost as bad as Sterling does in this, especially in Los Angeles. for sure... i was getting at what a bizarre stretch his entire ownership amounts to when you really look at it... and how this clip really took things from zero to sixty so quickly despite all the craziness from the last 3 decades that hes supplied. last week his semi-open racism was a non issue despite being WELL documented and widely reported. and i do still have a strong curiosity where the nba will draw lines around things like this. they must know that they have owners, execs, and players that all have unpopular or controversial opinions on a variety of social issues regarding race, sexuality, gender, and on, and on.... no one thats quoted me has touched that topic yet and id be curious to hear some opinions. Edited April 29, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) isn't the guarantee of free speech related to speech for or against the government? did I miss something here? did one of the government entities come down on this piece of ****? i thought it was just the NBA that delivered a ruling correction, it prohibits the government from passing laws prohibiting free speech So much for free speech. Bring home the Braves! Edited April 29, 2014 by The Poojer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Every year, at my place of employment, we have to do training, and "sign" an agreement of employee conduct. My company specifically tells us to watch what we say/do in public, and that if it's bad enough, legal or not, that we can be fired. The reasons given for this are specifically due to representation of the company's image and branding. As much as he's an "owner" of the team, he's still an "employee" of the NBA, and I don't see how this is any different than what my work can do to me, other than they wouldn't fine me. They could sue me, if I damaged the brand enough, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts