2013-14 NBA thread v. Adam Silver Lays the Pipe on Donald Sterling ©2014antigoon

[El Barto]

Holy shit! Silver just banned Sterling FOR LIFE, fined him 2.5 million and plans to FORCE him to sell the Clippers! Damn!

For comments made in private that were illegally recorded. I got a real problem with that.

Not exactly.

Apparently, like Chris said, Sterling knew the recording existed.  So right there that's a huge point for Sterling that doesn't count.

The bigger issue is that this is about who Sterling is.

If this recording came out, but it was Peter Holt (owner of the Spurs, one of the most respected owners in the league), this would be dealt with severely, but there would be no impetus to kick him out of the league.  The consensus would be the Holt is allowed to be a racist on his own time as long as he does his job as owner right.

Sterling is:
 - Incompetent as an owner.  The team is good now for reasons that have virtually nothing to do with him.
 - Someone who brings racism to his business dealings.  Rumor has it he didn't want to trade for J.J. Reddick because he didn't want to give a white player a 7 million dollar contract.  He's had two housing discrimination lawsuits filed against him.
 - Generally a scumbag.  His dealings with women are just as bad as his dealings with race.

Also, as much as I'd prefer it not be this way, a lot of what allows humanity to be what it is is less rational than symbolic.  FDR's new deal policies were mostly garbage, but it was more important that the government be firmly pro-worker and anti-business.  Lincoln's rationale for not letting the South secede was completely wrong, but it was more important that governments not be allowed to be divided based on racism.

This is the case here.  What Silver's doing with Sterling is problematic, but it has to be done.  This isn't dishonest (like the NSA spying).  This isn't further empowering the powerful at the expense of the average person (the bank bailouts).

An unrepentant, openly racist person owns an NBA team.  In a modern society, this simply can't be.

Finally, if you want to make a more practical argument - Sterling was stupid enough to record himself saying things on the phone with a booty call.  How could he have not expected this to happen unless he's too stupid to be responsible for owning an NBA team?  His actions are responsible for the NBA losing tons of money and experiencing tons of bad PR.  In a pure business sense, Sterling is a catastrophic liability for the league.  People are dissatisfied that the Clipper didn't boycott game 4, but they missed the longer game.  The Clippers team was waiting to play that card until they saw what Silver did.  If Silver didn't drop the nuclear option on Sterling, the Clippers would have called the punishment unsatisfactory and walked out.

When you're doing so bad a job owning your team that you have to worry about your players boycotting your games, you have to be kicked out of the league.

Silver can't be given enough credit for handling this the right way.

Some valid points, but a few problems, as well. Silver stated very plainly that his actions were a response to this incident only (correct me if I'm mistaken). Moreover:

An unrepentant, openly racist person owns an NBA team.  In a modern society, this simply can't be.

Sorry amigo, but this is bullshit. It's certainly a road you don't want to see traveled.

Finally, if you want to make a more practical argument - Sterling was stupid enough to record himself saying things on the phone with a booty call.

If this is true I'll certainly revise my opinion. I was thinking it was the POS girlfriend that recorded him, which is largely the basis for my problem with this.

[KevShmev]

I've heard nothing that indicates that Sterling knew he was being recorded.  Just an FYI.  I gotta think that if that were true, it would be getting more coverage.

[bosk1]

My problem with it is twofold:

1.  As Barto already addressed:

An unrepentant, openly racist person owns an NBA team.  In a modern society, this simply can't be.

I have a HUGE problem with this.  I am not defending Sterling one bit, and I think this views are 100% indefensible.  So let's just get that out of the way from the get go.  HOWEVER, no matter how offensive his views may be, when exactly did we as a society decide that out position was going to be:  If your views offend me, you forfeit the right to own property?  As Barto said, this is a road we should not be going down.  At all.  As wrong as Sterling is, this is even more wrong.  Last I checked, I thought we were against the idea of "thought police" in this society.

2.  Whether the recording is legal or illegal (and everything I am aware of seems to point toward it being illegal, but whatever), it was still a private conversation between two and only two people.  Sterling was not making policy on behalf of the NBA or even his team.  He was not speaking in the public where he could be deemed the voice of the team.  It was a private conversation.  As such, I have a problem with the NBA taking action based on this conversation.  If they want to take action based on his policies or things he does in the public, so be it.  But a private conversation between two people should not be the basis for any action.

[jammindude]

A general question unrelated to the racism remarks....

Does this open up the *possibility* that the Clippers don't stay in LA?    I mean, LA already has the Lakers, so it's not as if the market is not represented. 

I know the Clippers have their own fan base, and have for years, but since Sterling HAS TO SELL...doesn't that open the door for other interest groups?  Or is the team (for other contractual reasons) locked into LA? 

[ReaPsTA]

An unrepentant, openly racist person owns an NBA team.  In a modern society, this simply can't be.

Sorry amigo, but this is bullshit. It's certainly a road you don't want to see traveled.

It's inevitable though.  Look at the Brandon Eich thing (the Mozilla CEO).

Society has chosen to handle problems by channeling outrage about something into such a powerful case of bad PR that you can't ignore it.  This won't change.  The key is to handle it the right way.  In this, case, if Silver didn't punish Sterling as much as possible, the received message wouldn't have been "we should learn not to judge people by their private lives."  The received message would have been "racism is okay."

Yes, humanity is dumb.  I get it.  But you have to make the best of that.

EDIT:  To address something bosk said, the government isn't doing this.  It has nothing to do with property rights.

[Dimitrius]

My problem with it is twofold:

1.  As Barto already addressed:

An unrepentant, openly racist person owns an NBA team.  In a modern society, this simply can't be.

I have a HUGE problem with this.  I am not defending Sterling one bit, and I think this views are 100% indefensible.  So let's just get that out of the way from the get go.  HOWEVER, no matter how offensive his views may be, when exactly did we as a society decide that out position was going to be:  If your views offend me, you forfeit the right to own property?  As Barto said, this is a road we should not be going down.  At all.  As wrong as Sterling is, this is even more wrong.  Last I checked, I thought we were against the idea of "thought police" in this society.

You are against gays holding office or something, right? Feel me free to correct me if I'm misremembering.

I wanna know why being a racist is OK for owning property but being gay is not OK for a job.

[bosk1]

To address something bosk said, the government isn't doing this.  It has nothing to do with property rights.

I know the government isn't doing it.  But I have just as much of a problem that a private organization (the NBA) is doing it.  He is an owner of the team; not an employee.  Sanction him all you want, but saying he cannot own the team is in fact taking property away from him.

You are against gays holding office or something, right? Feel me free to correct me if I'm misremembering.

What?  No, you are mistaken.  And let's not get off topic.  This is already into territory that would normally get a thread moved to P/R, but I am letting it stay provided it stays on topic and doesn't stray too far into P/R-land.

[Dimitrius]

OK, my mistake.

[ReaPsTA]

I know the government isn't doing it.  But I have just as much of a problem that a private organization (the NBA) is doing it.  He is an owner of the team; not an employee.  Sanction him all you want, but saying he cannot own the team is in fact taking property away from him.

This article talks about the relevant portion of the NBA constitution that lets the other owners force a sale of a team.

Whether or not the comments were private, Sterling made them and they came out.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

A general question unrelated to the racism remarks....

Does this open up the *possibility* that the Clippers don't stay in LA?    I mean, LA already has the Lakers, so it's not as if the market is not represented. 

I know the Clippers have their own fan base, and have for years, but since Sterling HAS TO SELL...doesn't that open the door for other interest groups?  Or is the team (for other contractual reasons) locked into LA?

I don't know if the Clippers have a lease that locks them in the Staples center, but I would love to see them get moved to Baltimore.  But in reality.... they should be moved to Seattle. Those people deserve their Supersonics.

[ReaPsTA]

0% chance the NBA sells to an ownership group that wants to move them.

[antigoon]

2013-14 NBA thread v. Adam Silver Lays the Pipe on Donald Sterling

[Destiny Of Chaos]

0% chance the NBA sells to an ownership group that wants to move them.

I tend to agree that the NBA would do whatever it could to keep the team in that market, but I'd say the chances of them moving are a little greater than 0.

[El Barto]

I know the government isn't doing it.  But I have just as much of a problem that a private organization (the NBA) is doing it.  He is an owner of the team; not an employee.  Sanction him all you want, but saying he cannot own the team is in fact taking property away from him.

This article talks about the relevant portion of the NBA constitution that lets the other owners force a sale of a team.

Whether or not the comments were private, Sterling made them and they came out.

That actually sets up an interesting civil version of Mapp Vs. Ohio (sorry Bosk). It sets something of a nasty precedent in which anybody can obtain evidence of conversations and use it to wreck others. Seems like a reasonable thing to do would be to make a stand and say that it won't fly (hence Mapp). How long do you think the NBA would last if Sterling were to blow some of his new found billion hiring PIs to snoop on all of the players, coaches and owners if private lives were penalizable?

[ReaPsTA]

How long do you think the NBA would last if Sterling were to blow some of his new found billion hiring PIs to snoop on all of the players, coaches and owners private lives were penalizable?

Good question.

Believe me.  I have no idea where this is going or how it will work out.  I have no confidence, in the long term, that any of this will be good.  I can totally see, in 20-30 years, people writing that no matter how reprehensible Sterling's views were, the outrage against him was worse than what he did.

But right now is right now.  Your actions are necessarily interpreted a certain way by culture, and Silver needed to send a clear anti-racist message.

[Dimitrius]

With all the bad press Stern and the move of the Sonics had, there's a less than 0% chance of any other franchise being moved.

[ReaPsTA]

Apparently, the Wizards, Bulls, Thunder, Grizzlies, Warriors, and Clippers were all going to walk out tonight if they weren't satisfied with the league's punishment of Sterling.

I think what's being underrated right now, but will come out later, is how quickly and how effectively the players organized against Sterling.  They brought in Kevin Johnson immediately and made it clear to the league that Sterling was going to go unless they wanted a huge problem on their hands.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

I personally do not believe that the players would have really not played tonight. Fortunately, we'll never know.

[El Barto]

I personally do not believe that the players would have really not played tonight. Fortunately, we'll never know.

Agreed. It would seem that Silver also lacked the balls to establish some authority over the players. That's another bad precedent set.

[King Postwhore]

Must be nice to have all that money so you could walk out of work if you didn't like one of the owners.  We did that no matter if the owner was a dirtbag or not we'd lose out jobs.

[ReaPsTA]

Woj reported the player walkout thing too.  One of the NBPA VP's was the one who said it.  No way he would say that if it wasn't true.  It'd look stupid if the NBA's people dug a bit deeper and found it was purely grandstanding.

It was ready to go.

Agreed. It would seem that Silver also lacked the balls to establish some authority over the players. That's another bad precedent set.

It's not an issue of having balls.  Lets say Silver suspends Sterling just for this playoffs and only fines him a million.  Players walk out.  The next day, Silver announces penalties for the boycotting players.

All hell breaks loose.

[El Barto]

Agreed. It would seem that Silver also lacked the balls to establish some authority over the players. That's another bad precedent set.

It's not an issue of having balls.  Lets say Silver suspends Sterling just for this playoffs and only fines him a million.  Players walk out.  The next day, Silver announces penalties for the boycotting players.

All hell breaks loose.

I suspect that after this hell breaking loose is a foregone conclusion. What did the players learn today? Make a big enough stink and you can fuck with the owners. Whether or not Sterling should have been dealt with is one issue. Whether or not the players get to dictate the decision is another.

[ReaPsTA]

What did the players learn today? Make a big enough stink and you can fuck with the owners.

How is this a bad thing?

[El Barto]

What did the players learn today? Make a big enough stink and you can fuck with the owners.

How is this a bad thing?

Well this discussion sure took a distinct turn. The answer to your question is that it's against the order of things. The owners own the league. The players work for them at the owner's pleasure. This isn't a public institution where the rules have to effect everybody equally. Don't want to play in the playoffs tonight? Fine. Try to make your efforts count next year.

[jammindude]

Kids today...

[ReaPsTA]

Well this discussion sure took a distinct turn. The answer to your question is that it's against the order of things. The owners own the league. The players work for them at the owner's pleasure. This isn't a public institution where the rules have to effect everybody equally. Don't want to play in the playoffs tonight? Fine. Try to make your efforts count next year.

It's an issue of mentality.  When you say "the powerful must be powerful," you get abuse of power.  When you approach things from the angle of "it's the responsibility of powerful people to do what's in the best interests of the people they have power over," things actually work out for the average person.

Consider that, for the first time, the NBA has officially released a copy of its constitution and bylaws.  There was no reason for this document to ever be secret except as a way to keep less powerful people in the dark about how the upper-level power structure of the league operates.  But, because the league is dealing with this story the right way, now it's being transparent about itself in a meaningful way.

[El Barto]

Well this discussion sure took a distinct turn. The answer to your question is that it's against the order of things. The owners own the league. The players work for them at the owner's pleasure. This isn't a public institution where the rules have to effect everybody equally. Don't want to play in the playoffs tonight? Fine. Try to make your efforts count next year.

It's an issue of mentality.  When you say "the powerful must be powerful," you get abuse of power.  When you approach things from the angle of "it's the responsibility of powerful people to do what's in the best interests of the people they have power over," things actually work out for the average person.

What's wrong with a middle ground between those positions? Seems to me that what's best for the league is best for the players, as well. I doubt the Clippers' players are complaining about the ownership and the league too much when they're cashing their $320,000 check each month.

[ReaPsTA]

What's wrong with a middle ground between those positions?

Nothing, necessarily.  But that middle ground doesn't include Donald Sterling owning an NBA team.  He's just too disgusting a human being.

[Nekov]

So, you mean because they make a lot of money they can't go out and complain that their boss is being racist? I mean, in any other situation an employee can make a case of the boss making racist comments and things could go the way they are going now.

[El Barto]

What's wrong with a middle ground between those positions?

Nothing, necessarily.  But that middle ground doesn't include Donald Sterling owning an NBA team.  He's just too disgusting a human being.

Hey look, I don't like basketball. I didn't even know the Clippers were a team. I didn't know who Sterling or Silver were before yesterday. I'm only arguing about the principle of forcing a co-owner out over things he does in private. Quite honestly, I'm not sure who'd actually be entitled to own anything if all of our private acts were scrutinized for questionable behavior. Out of curiosity, is somebody stole all of your hard drives and posted them to TMZ, would you be allowed to own an NBA team? Should you be allowed to?

So, you mean because they make a lot of money they can't go out and complain that their boss is being racist? I mean, in any other situation an employee can make a case of the boss making racist comments and things could go the way they are going now.

Well, the discussion has been a bit more nuanced than that. And that wasn't my point anyway. I don't really have a problem with the players bitching about it. Hell, I don't have much of a problem with them bitching collectively about it. There does come a point though where it becomes extortion, and my original point was that the league probably should have acted to diminish that aspect. If the players don't want to play then so be it. If they're in breach of their contract, penalize them.

And for the record, I'd defend the sole owner of a private company's right to make racist comments to an employee and in public should he choose. Same rules apply. Employee doesn't have to work for him and the public doesn't have to support his business.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I feel very strangely about what happened today. If the NBA truly did take action based on the TMZ conversation alone, which they said they did, then I'm scared for reasons stated above by bosk1 and El Barto. On the other hand, Sterling has such a history of amoral activity that I can't say I'm going to lose any sleep over the ruling.

So I'm both against and fine with Silver's decision. I love how these things work sometimes.

[FlyingBIZKIT]

Wow. Chicago lays an egg. They got outplayed so bad.

And I don't think Durant and Westbrook are a good duo.

[j]

Sterling's an asshole and a complete idiot.  The commissioner's reaction was the predictable and necessary one from a PR damage control standpoint.  However, I think it's clearly way out of line, and the precedent it sets is scary.

As strange as it seems to anyone with half a brain, people are allowed to be racists.  The point Reap made that can't be ignored, is if there is indeed evidence of racism affecting Sterling's business practices (hiring, etc.).  But that's not what is even being put forth by the league in its reasoning.  Seems to me like a knee-jerk to appease the inevitable emotional explosion that comes with any "race" related controversy.

-J

[antigoon]

Being an owner of a sports franchise isn't like owning a house, or a regular company. You're part of a weird club/fraternity with its own special rules and conditions. I have no sympathy for Sterling, and I have no idea how this could set a scary precedent. What's going to happen?

[j]

Being an owner of a sports franchise isn't like owning a house, or a regular company. You're part of a weird club/fraternity with its own special rules and conditions.

And yet they retain their right to freedom of speech.

I have no sympathy for Sterling, and I have no idea how this could set a scary precedent. What's going to happen?

I have no sympathy for him either, I think he's despicable.  But the precedent is that he's not just being publicly vilified, but he's being forced out of ownership of his business for things he thinks and says in the (presumed) privacy of his own home, on his personal time.  I think it would be hard to argue that that isn't getting into dangerous territory.

-J