Sterling uses Kobe in his defense

[Trollsmasher]

http://www.insidesocal.com/lakers/2014/05/28/donald-sterling-cites-kobe-bryants-homosexual-slur-in-legal-response-to-nba/

:lol

[Akrazotile]

It is hypocritical and illustrates how many black folks want to basically play by a diff set of rules, and cowardly beta male white dudes get intimidated into accepting it.


How many blacks say fa**ot openly? How many rappers say "****** eyed" talkin bout bein high? ('Ch1nky' is apparently censored here, but not to black people.)How many 'civil rights leaders' call NY Hymietown? The black congressional caucus refuses white members.

And yet if a white guy says n*gger they flip out. If goodell doesnt punish an OWNER the exact same way he punishes a player they foolishly call it 'racist'. They want all kind of exemptions to social requirements, but everyone else must use caution at all times.


I dont want to see anybody discriminated against and I believe in equal rights for everybody. But Im not gonna be pushed around and cower to the fear of being labeled, when others are trying to get away with stuff and say I cant. So what if Im white? I cant be offended when Im the target of prejudice or bias? Um, yeah, I can. Its loser white kids who wet their jammies trying to show everyone how outraged by white people they are and how pro-black and every other minority they are so hopefully someone will accept them for once in their lives. Seriously. Loser, beta male white kids like deucewallruses are all about that double standard shit. ****ing beta male pussees.

[Milbuck]

Next up:

Donald Sterling brings up the "Lebron Defense", where he points at Lebron getting away with calling a reporter "retarded" during an interview.

[Akrazotile]

Next up:

Donald Sterling brings up the "Lebron Defense", where he points at Lebron getting away with calling a reporter "retarded" during an interview.


He doesnt need to, Leron said gay teammates are untrustworthy. It was swept under the rug, of course.

[oh the horror]

Do people have to keep explaining the differences in these scenarios?

[freshperry]

I dont like Sterling by any means, but reading this article objectively, the lawyers made some really good points. I can see this being help up in court if played right.... but the owners might just vote to strip his ownership away anyways to get rid of the media

[Akrazotile]

Do people have to keep explaining the differences in these scenarios?


For real dude. Some people just cant get it thru their head that its a double standard, cut and dried.


Morons. :hammerhead:

[ZenMaster]

Didn't just use Kobe but a bunch of examples:


For comparison, the below is a non-exhaustive list of publicly available examples of past
public acts of conduct by NBA owners, coaches, and players. Some were punished; many were not.

Speech-Related Conduct

x A player was fined $100,000 but not suspended for referring to a referee as a “****ing ******” on television.

x Jason Collins—the first openly homosexual player in the NBA—reported that he
heard negative comments from another player during a game.4 The NBA has not announced that it was investigating or taking any action concerning the matter.

x An owner donated $500,000 to the National Organization for Marriage, which
advocates around the nation to legally ban marriage between homosexual couples.
LGBT advocacy groups called for a boycott. The NBA took no action despite
these threats of a boycott. On the topic of HIV/AIDS, the same owner had this to say in an interview 2010: “When HIV first came out President Reagan formed a commission, and I was honored to be on that commission. I listened to 300 witnesses tell us that it was everybody else’s fault but their own. Nothing to do with their conduct, just that the government didn’t fix this disease. At the end of that I put in the document, it was the conclusion document from the commission, that actions have consequences and you are responsible for yours. AIDS is a disease that people gain because of their actions. It wasn’t like cancer. We all made the exceptions for how you got it, by accident, that was all solved a long time ago. . . . That’s when they started hanging me in effigy because I wasn’t sympathetic to all their requests for special treatment. Because at that time it was
always someone else’s fault. I said, you are responsible for your actions too, you know. Conduct yourself properly, which is a pretty solid Christian principle.”
The NBA similarly took no action.

x When talking to a newspaper reporter, a former NBA player referred to his legal counsel as “big-time Jew lawyers” and referred to the Jewish people as “some crafty people” because “they are hated all over the world.” The same player also used an anti-homosexual epithet directed to a fan. Former NBA commissioner

4
It is worth noting that Mr. Collins admirably stated the following in reaction to these comments: “We’re all human. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You hope that if someone has a negative opinion, that they would keep it to themselves. But at the same time, I understand that in the NBA, we’re a bunch of individuals and this is America and everyone’s
entitled to their opinion.”
David Stern stated that the remarks against homosexuals were “inappropriate and
insensitive” and merited a suspension but did not suspend the player or ban him
from future NBA activities.

In response to an Asian player’s “tweet” asking to guess where he ate a meal,
another player responded “Panda Express.” The NBA took no action although it
was reported in several media outlets.
x Referring to Yao Ming, a player stated (on a television show): “Tell Yao Ming,
‘ching chong yang wah ah soh.’” And although the statement offended many in
the Chinese community, the NBA neither fined nor suspended the player. Last
month, that same player—now a former player—was accused of publicly
mocking (on Instagram) a picture of a man with ectodermal dysplasia, a rare
genetic disorder affecting one’s appearance. Despite being a minority owner of
the Sacramento Kings, the NBA has yet to take any action against this individual.
x After Mr. Sterling’s illegally recorded private comments were leaked, a former
player and current Knicks executive “tweeted”: “Black people your Focusing on
the wrong thing. We should be focusing on having our own, Own team own
League! To For Self!!” The NBA ignored this call for a racially homogenous
league.

Past Owner Punishments

x An owner was suspended for nearly a year for signing a player to a secret
contract, which violated the salary cap rules.

x An owner was fined $25,000 and suspended two games for being convicted of
drunk driving.

x An owner was fined $100,000 for confronting referees on a court after the game
and using inappropriate language toward them.

x Multiple owners were fined undisclosed sums (reported at between $100,000 and
$500,000) for making public comments on Twitter about the collective bargaining
process during the 2011 NBA lockout.
Non-Speech-Related Player Punishments

x A player was suspended 72 games plus playoffs for punching a fan. That same
player was suspended seven games for a domestic violence incident, among other
past suspensions.

x A player was suspended for 82 games (reduced to 68 games by an arbitrator for
being too severe) for choking his coach and threatening to kill him.

A player was suspended for 11 games for kicking a cameraman in the groin such
that the cameraman needed to be carried away on a stretcher. The same player
was suspended six games and fined $20,000 for head-butting a referee.

x A player was suspended for seven games for pleading guilty to a reckless driving
charge that resulted in the death of a passenger.

No owner, coach, or player has ever been fined close to $2.5 million, banned for life, and
forced to sell their property for any offense, let alone an alleged private speech-related offense.
The NBA claims a commitment to diversity and inclusion, but it appears to have ignored many
public statements undermining those principles in the past. In fact, the only permanent bans of
record—other than the ban the Commissioner currently requests—involve gambling violations
and repeated violations of the NBA’s substance-abuse policy. And further, as far as Mr. Sterling
is aware, no one in the NBA has ever been punished for speaking in a private constitutionally
protected setting. In view of these facts, the Commissioner’s request to compel Mr. Sterling to
sell the Los Angeles Clippers is internally inconsistent with prior punishments, is discriminatory,
and is arbitrary and capricious

[JohnMax]

He doesnt need to, Leron said gay teammates are untrustworthy. It was swept under the rug, of course.

http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/21-chris-bosh-champagne-facial-miami-heat-hate-gifs.gif

[oh the horror]

Look, erasing all of the racial tension storm aside.


These are things that are really going on here.

Donald has a history of this behavior. Call it ignorance, bigotry, or just your run of the mill shit-headedness.


The league has probably known about him but haven't had a SOLID reason to actively remove him enough where it caused a public shit storm.



What makes this situation different is that it was made public via tmz in a way that not only was there a public outcry outside of the fandom of basketball but it's hurting them financially and image wise.



Donald is now throwing rocks around and taking everyone down with him and frankly it makes him look worse.



It's just this simple. People don't want him here. The league doesn't want him here. He doesn't seem to understand that.



At this point he comes off like a child that doesn't know how to cope with someone telling him "no".



This isn't about racism or blah blah blah. This is about a PR disaster and a financial one.

[Akrazotile]

Look, erasing all of the racial tension storm aside.


These are things that are really going on here.

Donald has a history of this behavior. Call it ignorance, bigotry, or just your run of the mill shit-headedness.


The league has probably known about him but haven't had a SOLID reason to actively remove him enough where it caused a public shit storm.



What makes this situation different is that it was made public via tmz in a way that not only was there a public outcry outside of the fandom of basketball but it's hurting them financially and image wise.



Donald is now throwing rocks around and taking everyone down with him and frankly it makes him look worse.



It's just this simple. People don't want him here. The league doesn't want him here. He doesn't seem to understand that.



At this point he comes off like a child that doesn't know how to cope with someone telling him "no".



This isn't about racism or blah blah blah. This is about a PR disaster and a financial one.


The thing is though, anyone who accepts a job from an employer knows that you always sign something where they say "We have the right to terminate your employment at any time, for any reason."

And yet, 'wrongful termination' lawsuits get upheld ALL THE TIME. So just because the nba org put something in its own constitution and made people sign it, does not mean they are exempt from any overriding legalities. I mean I dont care if he does or doesnt lose it, hes a scummy dude regardless, but everyone wants to throw out rules and laws in THIS case bc they dont like sterling on a personal level, but want to invoke thise same protections for others when it serves their agenda.

My issue isnt with Sterling keeping the team or not, I couldnt care less. My issue, like mark cuban's, is the mammoth hypocrisy involved from many of those who want sterling out.

[iamgine]

Donald Sterling's lawyers making legit arguments :applause: :applause: :applause:

[ZenMaster]

Look, erasing all of the racial tension storm aside.


These are things that are really going on here.

Donald has a history of this behavior. Call it ignorance, bigotry, or just your run of the mill shit-headedness.


The league has probably known about him but haven't had a SOLID reason to actively remove him enough where it caused a public shit storm.



What makes this situation different is that it was made public via tmz in a way that not only was there a public outcry outside of the fandom of basketball but it's hurting them financially and image wise.



Donald is now throwing rocks around and taking everyone down with him and frankly it makes him look worse.



It's just this simple. People don't want him here. The league doesn't want him here. He doesn't seem to understand that.



At this point he comes off like a child that doesn't know how to cope with someone telling him "no".



This isn't about racism or blah blah blah. This is about a PR disaster and a financial one.

Maybe people don't want him there but it's far from "that simple".

NBA by-laws state that in order to throw an owner out he has to wilfully make comments or take action that is ditremental to the league.

Wilfully means deliberate/with intent, and Sterling did not deliberately make those comments to TMZ.

[oh the horror]

Well frankly everyone that have come out publically as offended to me are full of shit anyway.


Do people think Magic Johnson didn't know the score on this dude?



Legally though, I don't know wtf is going to happen

[Akrazotile]

Donald Sterling's lawyers making legit arguments :applause: :applause: :applause:


This.

Im actually really glad this is happening, its exposing what an arbitrary SHAM the culture of political correctness is.

[mattvNJ]

He doesnt need to, Leron said gay teammates are untrustworthy. It was swept under the rug, of course.
Not at all what he said,

He said he wants trustworthy teammates, he then went on to say if your gay and you dont say your gay your untrustworthy due to concealing the truth. He basically wants open communication and truth amongst his squad which is admirable at worst. Not one did he say gay teammates are untrustworthy.

Reading comprehension, get some.

[FLDFSU]

And here comes the "oh woe is the white man" crowd. Get over it. The NBA does not want Sterling associated with their league anymore.

Don't like it? Stop watching and start posting on NHL boards.

Simple idiots.

[navy]

Donald Sterling's lawyers making legit arguments :applause: :applause: :applause:
Legit arguments how? None of this stops the nba from continuing to do what it is doing. :oldlol:

[Derka]

*yawn* They should never give internet to people with nothing better to do than use the internet.

[Akrazotile]

Not at all what he said,

He said he wants trustworthy teammates, he then went on to say if your gay and you dont say your gay your untrustworthy due to concealing the truth. He basically wants open communication and truth amongst his squad which is admirable at worst. Not one did he say gay teammates are untrustworthy.

Reading comprehension, get some.

[iamgine]

Legit arguments how? None of this stops the nba from continuing to do what it is doing. :oldlol:
Whether the argument wins or not, it is still legit.

[Akrazotile]

And here comes the "oh woe is the white man" crowd. Get over it. The NBA does not want Sterling associated with their league anymore.

Don't like it? Stop watching and start posting on NHL boards.

Simple idiots.


Well those have all become 'oh woe is the black man' of late. :confusedshrug:

[lilgodfather1]

Seriously good argument. It may not work for him, but it is legitimate. Interesting point about nobody has gotten anywhere near 2.5 mil fine, and banned for life, and certainly not forced to sell.

Shaq should get 2.5 million fine, and a 3 year suspension, minimum. He did it intentionally and was purposely hurtful.

[oh the horror]

Well either way it's forcing people as a whole to seriously have legitimate
Discussions on the matter. Which we sorely need. Even if it begins as bickering.

[UK2K]

Let's just forget the hypothetical thought police and have a real, government recruited police force that kicks in doors and arrests people for their thoughts and opinions. Just like North Korea.

We're headed that way now, let's just get it over with.

[Adam Silver]

Kobe is practically done anyway, so I may just ban them both so Sterling can't use that defense.

[mattvNJ]

“We’re like family and you take showers with each other,” James said Wednesday. “We’re on the bus together and we talk about a lot of things and if you’re not trustworthy, like admitting you’re gay, you can’t be trusted. It’s a trust factor.”


So he doesn't want to take showers with a homosexual, or just the ones who haven't blabbed to everyone about their sexuality? Can you clear this up for me. I'm sure either way, it's admirable at worst.


Also, telling your teammates if you like the D or the cooch is what solidifies your value as a trustworthy person? That's a pretty good measuring stick. Certainly admirable at worst.

obviously not what i meant and your misconstruing my words. Im talking about hiding stuff from people. Your with them every day, traveling sharing experiences. Hiding stuff can cause a riff in trust.

Also you are omitting a portion of the quote to fit what you said in attempt to change the whole quote.

"With teammates you have to be trustworthy, and if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy," - LJ

[longtime lurker]

Didn't just use Kobe but a bunch of examples:

:sleeping :sleeping Sterling is grasping at straws. Show me anywhere in those examples where sponsors have pulled money or players threatened to boycott games. I wonder why he didn't use the numerous racist remarks that he's made over the years as examples? The NBA and other 29 owners are well within their right to revoke his membership based on his prior actions and the NBA bylaws that Sterling signed! I'm sure the NBA doesn't want a legal battle but they have more than enough ammunition to go right back at him.

[Sharmer]

This is a brilliant move. It demonstrates the NBA double standards and shows that the NBA is not acting with consistency and fairness.

[Sarcastic]

The only way Sterling can win is if Cuban can rally 7 other members to not vote him out. Will be interesting to see if the names of the owners that vote to keep him in are released, and what the ramifications will be towards their franchises.

[Ancient Legend]

The hypocrisy by the NBA is astonishing. Plenty of other examples where players and coaches have been shown as bigots, and they got nowhere near the fines that Sterling did.

Granger saying Euros smell like shit.
Kobe's ****** comment.
Shaq dissing asians (Yao)
Dan Issel dissing mexicans.
Calipari dissing mexicans.
Jalen Rose saying black players who spoke decent english were Uncle Toms.
Spike Lee (past spokesman for the NBA) saying Whites are ruining Brooklyn.
Hiring Drake for the All-Star game, when he's publicly said women are only good for ****ing.

[ZenMaster]

:sleeping :sleeping Sterling is grasping at straws. Show me anywhere in those examples where sponsors have pulled money or players threatened to boycott games. I wonder why he didn't use the numerous racist remarks that he's made over the years as examples? The NBA and other 29 owners are well within their right to revoke his membership based on his prior actions and the NBA bylaws that Sterling signed! I'm sure the NBA doesn't want a legal battle but they have more than enough ammunition to go right back at him.

All I know is if you read the by-laws and his answer to the allegations his lawer makes a very good case for the opposite.

[Akrazotile]

The hypocrisy by the NBA is astonishing. Plenty of other examples where players and coaches have been shown as bigots, and they got nowhere near the fines that Sterling did.

Granger saying Euros smell like shit.
Kobe's ****** comment.
Shaq dissing asians (Yao)
Dan Issel dissing mexicans.
Calipari dissing mexicans.
Jalen Rose saying black players who spoke decent english were Uncle Toms.
Spike Lee (past spokesman for the NBA) saying Whites are ruining Brooklyn.
Hiring Drake for the All-Star game, when he's publicly said women are only good for ****ing.


Don't forget GrandMaMa (currently a Knicks employee) claiming blacks should start a league exclusively for themselves, based on the comments of one white guy.

[Denitron]

Why? Did he rape somebo-......oh, the racist stuff

Nevermind

[tanner892]

I've read nearly the whole defense written by Sterling's legal team, and agree with it 100%

[Unbiased_one]

:sleeping :sleeping Sterling is grasping at straws. Show me anywhere in those examples where sponsors have pulled money or players threatened to boycott games. I wonder why he didn't use the numerous racist remarks that he's made over the years as examples? The NBA and other 29 owners are well within their right to revoke his membership based on his prior actions and the NBA bylaws that Sterling signed! I'm sure the NBA doesn't want a legal battle but they have more than enough ammunition to go right back at him.

I think you will find that even if the owners vote him out (unlikely) the nba has little chance of coming away unscathed in court.

[Sarcastic]

The hypocrisy by the NBA is astonishing. Plenty of other examples where players and coaches have been shown as bigots, and they got nowhere near the fines that Sterling did.

Granger saying Euros smell like shit.
Kobe's ****** comment.
Shaq dissing asians (Yao)
Dan Issel dissing mexicans.
Calipari dissing mexicans.
Jalen Rose saying black players who spoke decent english were Uncle Toms.
Spike Lee (past spokesman for the NBA) saying Whites are ruining Brooklyn.
Hiring Drake for the All-Star game, when he's publicly said women are only good for ****ing.


You should boycott the league if you are so offended. No one is stopping you.

[longtime lurker]

All I know is if you read the by-laws and his answer to the allegations his lawer makes a very good case for the opposite.

The NBA needs to show that Sterling has damaged the brand. Sponsors have dropped out, players are threatening to boycott. Telling his girlfriend not to bring African Americans which again harms the league. Sorry but claiming shit that Kobe said is just a desperate attempt considering that players aren't under the same guidelines. All this is a moot point when the owners vote him out. The only guy on his side right now is Cuban and unless he can sway some more votes Sterling is gone.

[Unbiased_one]

The NBA needs to show that Sterling has damaged the brand. Sponsors have dropped out, players are threatening to boycott. Telling his girlfriend not to bring African Americans which again harms the league. Sorry but claiming shit that Kobe said is just a desperate attempt considering that players aren't under the same guidelines. All this is a moot point when the owners vote him out. The only guy on his side right now is Cuban and unless he can sway some more votes Sterling is gone.

It's a moot point. Even if the owners vote him out the nba will be shat on in court.

[ProfessorMurder]

The NBA needs to show that Sterling has damaged the brand. Sponsors have dropped out, players are threatening to boycott. Telling his girlfriend not to bring African Americans which again harms the league. Sorry but claiming shit that Kobe said is just a desperate attempt considering that players aren't under the same guidelines. All this is a moot point when the owners vote him out. The only guy on his side right now is Cuban and unless he can sway some more votes Sterling is gone.

Yeah it's so damaged that his team is worth multiple times what he paid for it, and there's a bidding war for it, and the league itself if growing in popularity.

Other people were fined or not even punished. They weren't stripped of their property and kicked out of the league.

If negative comments hurt the league, players comments and owner comments should carry the same weight.

[longtime lurker]

Yeah it's so damaged that his team is worth multiple times what he paid for it, and there's a bidding war for it, and the league itself if growing in popularity.

Other people were fined or not even punished. They weren't stripped of their property and kicked out of the league.

If negative comments hurt the league, players comments and owner comments should carry the same weight.

How many times must it be spelled out for you. Sponsors and players are ready to boycott directly because of what Sterling said. Show me another case of where that has happened for a player,owner, coach or anyone else. I'll wait......

You may want owner comments and player comments to carry the same weight, but they don't. They're under two different set of rules. That's the way it is cry me a river build a bridge and get over it. Sterling signed up to adhere to the NBA bylaws. He broke the bylaw and he's being held accountable for his actions.

[NumberSix]

He's got a point. Kobe PUBLICLY and willfully called somebody a "******" right on an NBA court.

[HomieWeMajor]

Most defense that Kobe's played in 10 years

[NuggetsFan]

And here comes the "oh woe is the white man" crowd. Get over it. The NBA does not want Sterling associated with their league anymore.

Don't like it? Stop watching and start posting on NHL boards.

Simple idiots.

NHL boards? Last I checked they didn't have an openly racist owner like the NBA :oldlol:

[GimmeThat]

wait, is the government planning on starting its own sports league for all sports?

because title nine has failed, EPICLY!!!

I meant title seven.


Need a book and educate myself.

[Dresta]

How many times must it be spelled out for you. Sponsors and players are ready to boycott directly because of what Sterling said. Show me another case of where that has happened for a player,owner, coach or anyone else. I'll wait......

You may want owner comments and player comments to carry the same weight, but they don't. They're under two different set of rules. That's the way it is cry me a river build a bridge and get over it. Sterling signed up to adhere to the NBA bylaws. He broke the bylaw and he's being held accountable for his actions.
And there will be sponsors lined up around the block to replace whichever ones decide not to have dealings with Sterling and the Clippers. If the players boycott then they are not getting paid, so we all know that ain't happening :roll:

Sterling does not seem to have hurt the Clippers value at, which is sky high right now.

Legit arguments how? None of this stops the nba from continuing to do what it is doing. :oldlol:
Actually it does if he can show in court that the NBA has clear double-standards when it comes to punishing improper conduct, and that his actions were no worse than many things others have done that only entailed things like 25k fines.

Disproportionate and unequal treatment directed towards a single person is highly discriminatory, and Sterling certainly has that on his side.

[ProfessorMurder]

How many times must it be spelled out for you. Sponsors and players are ready to boycott directly because of what Sterling said. Show me another case of where that has happened for a player,owner, coach or anyone else. I'll wait......

You may want owner comments and player comments to carry the same weight, but they don't. They're under two different set of rules. That's the way it is cry me a river build a bridge and get over it. Sterling signed up to adhere to the NBA bylaws. He broke the bylaw and he's being held accountable for his actions.

How many times must it be spelled out for you? They're so ready to boycott that his team is magically worth 2 billion dollars :rolleyes: Losing a few sponsors doesn't amount to dick.

You want an example of losing sponsors? Sponsors fled from Tiger Woods for f*cking some bitches.

'Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it'? Are you in kindergarten? Kobe calling a ref a 'f*cking f*ggot' is just as bad as Sterling telling his girlfriend not to hang out with black people. It's actually worse since Kobe is the face of a franchise and did it on tv while the camera was on him; people wouldn't even know what Sterling looked like if they saw him on the street.

Kobe signed a contract to adhere to bylaws too. How does his rape case affect the precious sponsors and the image of basketball?

Sterling is a piece of shit but his punishment shouldn't be infinitely more harsh than other negative things players have done, especially since it's a player league.

[The Iron Sheik]

guys are grasping at everything they can now. i didn't even have a problem with anything sterling said, but this is starting to get sad on his part.

[qrich]

It'd be ironical if Sterling were to win a huge discrimination lawsuit against the NBA after all the alleged discrimination done by Mr Sterling.

[guy]

'Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it'? Are you in kindergarten? Kobe calling a ref a 'f*cking f*ggot' is just as bad as Sterling telling his girlfriend not to hang out with black people.


Umm, no its not. One is a two-second comment made out of frustration. The other is a 15 minute tirade. Kobe's is basically the same thing as Riley Cooper's who didn't really get punished at all. If Kobe went on a 15 minute tirade bashing homosexuals, it would be a MUCH bigger deal.

[guy]

Donald Sterling's points about other owners may be valid. But players? He's basically saying that as an owner, he shouldn't be held to a higher standard. Ownership/Management in any company is usually held to a higher standard.

[Dresta]

It'd be ironical if Sterling were to win a huge discrimination lawsuit against the NBA after all the alleged discrimination done by Mr Sterling.
It would be, and even more so considering the NBA promotes itself as such a tolerant organisation :lol

[tpols]

For those saying they are allowed to ban sterling because sponsors dropped because of him, what does that have to do with punishing him for his conduct? Right now theyre punishing him based on the external aftermath, not what he actually did.. is that allowed?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Kobe calling a ref a 'f*cking f*ggot' is just as bad as Sterling telling his girlfriend not to hang out with black people.

Not even close. The words 'f*cking f*ggot' (reactionary) can implicate a number of things; Sterling and his conversation were flat-out racist.. :oldlol:

[guy]

For those saying they are allowed to ban sterling because sponsors dropped because of him, what does that have to do with punishing him for his conduct? Right now theyre punishing him based on the external aftermath, not what he actually did.. is that allowed?

They are punishing him for his conduct. I think people are saying they have no choice but to punish him because of the consequences it has on the league as a whole (sponsors pulling out, potential player strike, etc.) They would never explicitly say they are punishing him because of the consequences it has on the league.

[DMAVS41]

For those saying they are allowed to ban sterling because sponsors dropped because of him, what does that have to do with punishing him for his conduct? Right now theyre punishing him based on the external aftermath, not what he actually did.. is that allowed?

I think that is the big point.

Ultimately the NBA is going to vote him out not because of his actions, but because of the aftermath of them.

And I certainly think they can do that if it is shown than any action seriously damages the NBA brand

The problem is that the NBA doesn't want the public to know that really the only reason they are doing this is because of public pressure and public opinion.

And it's a big deal because owners are worried...and players should be worried that the next thing that the public/media gets all up in arms about is going to get another guy banned.

[NumberSix]

Not even close. The words 'f*cking f*ggot' (reactionary) can implicate a number of things; Sterling and his conversation were flat-out racist.. :oldlol:
Yes, of course. Perhaps he was calling him a fornicating meatball.

:rolleyes:

[AceManIII]

http://bigtonysfantasyleague.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/youre-welcome-kobe-system.gif

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

fornicating meatball

I don't get it.

[Jameerthefear]

you guy are all idiots for still discussing this after this long. stupid f*cks.

[NumberSix]

The NBA needs to show that Sterling has damaged the brand. Sponsors have dropped out, players are threatening to boycott. Telling his girlfriend not to bring African Americans which again harms the league. Sorry but claiming shit that Kobe said is just a desperate attempt considering that players aren't under the same guidelines. All this is a moot point when the owners vote him out. The only guy on his side right now is Cuban and unless he can sway some more votes Sterling is gone.
That you know of.

[NumberSix]

Umm, no its not. One is a two-second comment made out of frustration. The other is a 15 minute tirade. Kobe's is basically the same thing as Riley Cooper's who didn't really get punished at all. If Kobe went on a 15 minute tirade bashing homosexuals, it would be a MUCH bigger deal.
Oh, so if Sterling just called someone a nιgger for 2 seconds.... No big deal?

[NumberSix]

I don't get it.
http://images.says.com/uploads/story_source/source_image/211290/big_thumb_e138.jpeg

[guy]

Oh, so if Sterling just called someone a nιgger for 2 seconds.... No big deal?

Of course it still is. But honestly, I don't think it would've been as big of a deal, if he basically did the same thing as Riley Cooper. He's more likely to get forgiveness if it was just a heat of the moment type thing. Now in his case, it would still cause an uproar because of his history and because he is an owner. If it was JJ Reddick instead who said this, he would basically get the Riley Cooper treatment. Like I said, its unrealistic to expect ownership/management to not be held to a higher standard.

[ForeverHeat]

Sterling is a retard. Being black isnt a mental illness you dumb f*ck.

[guy]

Do people really think Kobe is a homophobe because he called someone a "******"? Thats a big difference here. Using gay slurs towards things that have nothing to do with gay people at all is somewhat of a cultural norm. Its a big problem in our society and I'm not trying to diminish that when I say this, but its very common. And pretty much everyone, from all different backgrounds, has grown up that way and knowing that. Racial slurs usually aren't treated that way. You wouldn't hear someone call a white person a ****** for example. And Donald Sterling's tape wasn't even slurs, it was a huge tirade about how I feels about black people, which sounded pretty negatively.

Its only fairly recently that society has smartened up and realized how insensitive gay slurs are, which is why you find more people who accidentally slip up when it comes to that. Society smartened up about racial slurs like 40 years ago so its alot more unacceptable today then it is for gay slurs. Like I said, its not right, but because of this reality, its kinda unfair at this point to punish the two equally. Now in 10-20 years, I think its fair to assume that there will be harsher penalties for insensitivity towards homosexuality and understandably so.

[Akrazotile]

Do people really think Kobe is a homophobe because he called someone a "******"? Thats a big difference here. Using gay slurs towards things that have nothing to do with gay people at all is somewhat of a cultural norm. Its a big problem in our society and I'm not trying to diminish that when I say this, but its very common. And pretty much everyone, from all different backgrounds, has grown up that way and knowing that. Racial slurs usually aren't treated that way. You wouldn't hear someone call a white person a ****** for example. And Donald Sterling's tape wasn't even slurs, it was a huge tirade about how I feels about black people, which sounded pretty negatively.

Its only fairly recently that society has smartened up and realized how insensitive gay slurs are, which is why you find more people who accidentally slip up when it comes to that. Society smartened up about racial slurs like 40 years ago so its alot more unacceptable today then it is for gay slurs. Like I said, its not right, but because of this reality, its kinda unfair at this point to punish the two equally. Now in 10-20 years, I think its fair to assume that there will be harsher penalties for insensitivity towards homosexuality and understandably so.


Freudian slip here...?

[guy]

Freudian slip here...?

Huh?

[Akrazotile]

Huh?
brah.

[2LeTTeRS]

For those saying they are allowed to ban sterling because sponsors dropped because of him, what does that have to do with punishing him for his conduct? Right now theyre punishing him based on the external aftermath, not what he actually did.. is that allowed?

Happens all the time. Thing of it like this 2 people get in a argument that escalates and one of them throws a punch -- if the person you hit is barely phased by it and a policeman breaks it up you'll probably only be charged with simple assault. If that same punch results in the victim being knocked unconscious or killed then the crime you will be charged with a much more serious crime.

It's the same concept here -- while the action may have been similar the events that unfolded afterward must be considered in determining punishment.

[Akrazotile]

Happens all the time. Thing of it like this 2 people get in a argument that escalates and one of them throws a punch -- if the person you hit is barely phased by it and a policeman breaks it up you'll probably only be charged with simple assault. If that same punch results in the victim being knocked unonscious or killed then the crime you will be charged with a much more serious crime.

It's the same concept here -- while the action may have been the similar the events that unfolded afterward must be considered in determining punishment.


Except that when a punch is thrown, there is an inherent attempt to do harm, regardless of the degree to which you succeed. If you are arguing with a friend and gesticulating your hands, and a passerby walks by you and is hit, you're not going to be charged with assault. You could be susceptible to civil damages, but you aren't going to be charged with a crime.

Sterling's conversation was private and illegally recorded. There was no intent to cause damage or harm.

[Akrazotile]

The funny thing about it is that Sterling basically gains nothing whatsoever by remaining the owner. No court is going to force the league to rescind its lifetime ban, even if they block a forced sale of the team. So Sterling is absolutely persona non grata from the Clippers for the rest of his life. No prestige of sitting courtside, no award ceremony if they win a title, no taking women in the lockerroom to check out the beautiful black bodies. Basically no affiliation with the club whatsoever.

So if he does successfully remain as owner, he gets a decent revenue stream from that position... but nothing remotely close to what he'd get from selling.


So in practical terms, it makes no real sense to do what he's doing. This is like a legit real life case of massive public trolling, purely for the sake of trolling. I honestly can't think of any examples of someone this rich and famous doing something like this, although I wish more of them would. Sterling is a pioneer :lol

[tpols]

Happens all the time. Thing of it like this 2 people get in a argument that escalates and one of them throws a punch -- if the person you hit is barely phased by it and a policeman breaks it up you'll probably only be charged with simple assault. If that same punch results in the victim being knocked unonscious or killed then the crime you will be charged with a much more serious crime.

It's the same concept here -- while the action may have been the similar the events that unfolded afterward must be considered in determining punishment.

True..


Except that when a punch is thrown, there is an inherent attempt to do harm, regardless of the degree to which you succeed. If you are arguing with a friend and gesticulating your hands, and a passerby walks by you and is hit, you're not going to be charged with assault. You could be susceptible to civil damages, but you aren't going to be charged with a crime.

Sterling's conversation was private and illegally recorded. There was no intent to cause damage or harm.

What about if you accidently hit someone with your car at a crosswalk, and in one scenario the person suffers minor injuries and walks off, in another the person dies. Same action but the results will make for different consequences for yourself(with no intent to do harm or anything).

[Akrazotile]

What about if you accidently hit someone with your car at a crosswalk, and in one scenario the person suffers minor injuries and walks off, in another the person dies. Same action but the results will make for different consequences for yourself(with no intent to do harm or anything).


I mean certainly I'm not an expert on the law, but driving into a crosswalk when there are pedestrians crossing is an illegal act. There is a rule that you can't do that, like there is a rule that you can't punch someone.

Basically, you can break a rule without intent to cause harm, and there are also times where you can not necessarily break a rule, but clearly intend to cause harm. As long as you have one of those things it's usually grounds for action.

As far as I can tell in Sterling's case... You don't have a violation of a rule, and you don't have an intent to inflict damage. I mean there's literally nothing there except a private conversation in his home that was illegally recorded, where he asked his frankenho not to attend games with Magic Johnson. Imagine if we set that precedent that you literally can't even speak freely in your own home, because if someone secretly records it and it becomes public, you lose everything. I know the public and the average consumer is very, very shortsighted but this is a terrible road to go down. Cuban is smart, and he knows this. He's not condoning Donald Sterling, he proabbly doesn't even like him. But this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set. Sterling literally did not break a rule nor even intend to. He gave an opinion in private. That's his offense. Which is something that EVERYONE does, but we just don't witchhunt them if they're not rich and white. And he's being forced to give up everything. It's easy for us to sit here and throw rocks at the bigoted billionaire, but don't think that anyone here couldn't be next. That's what precedents do.

[tpols]

^I agree with that.. and :lol @ frankenho

[2LeTTeRS]

As far as I can tell in Sterling's case... You don't have a violation of a rule, and you don't have an intent to inflict damage. I mean there's literally nothing there except a private conversation in his home that was illegally recorded, where he asked his frankenho not to attend games with Magic Johnson. Imagine if we set that precedent that you literally can't even speak freely in your own home, because if someone secretly records it and it becomes public, you lose everything. I know the public and the average consumer is very, very shortsighted but this is a terrible road to go down. Cuban is smart, and he knows this. He's not condoning Donald Sterling, he proabbly doesn't even like him. But this is a TERRIBLE precedent to set. Sterling literally did not break a rule nor even intend to. He gave an opinion in private. That's his offense. Which is something that EVERYONE does, but we just don't witchhunt them if they're not rich and white. And he's being forced to give up everything. It's easy for us to sit here and throw rocks at the bigoted billionaire, but don't think that anyone here couldn't be next. That's what precedents do.

That precedent already exists. Don't believe me -- ask Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson. No matter whether said privately or publicly if you're a celebrity and you're dirty laundry makes its way into the public arena you will be judged for it.

[Akrazotile]

That precedent already exists. Don't believe me -- ask Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson. No matter whether said privately or publicly if you're a celebrity and you're dirty laundry makes its way into the public arena you will be judged for it.

Well you're right, the self righteous masses certainly can judge someone as being a terrible person for being judgmental if they want to. :lol But as far as I know, Gibson and Sheen weren't forced to give up their rights to a particular property on those grounds. Also, their comments were not private. Gibson was shouting his comments at police officers on the side of a public road. Sheen calls into radio shows and says the things he says.

Sterling was in his own home and the rules are different there than they are elsewhere. Just like walking around naked. You can do it in your home, but you can't do it everywhere.


Think about this. What if an owner was secretly videotaped making sweet, sweet love to another man in his bedroom, and the video was leaked. The team lost a bunch of conservative sponsorship and a bunch of fans protested. Chris Broussard rallied all his sauces near and far and led a boycotting crusade. Do you think the league would ban him for life, fine him 2.5 million dollars, and force him to sell the team?


The answer in that case, and the answer in Sterling's case, should be identical IMO or else we're talking massive hypocrisy.

[ZenMaster]

How many times must it be spelled out for you. Sponsors and players are ready to boycott directly because of what Sterling said. Show me another case of where that has happened for a player,owner, coach or anyone else. I'll wait......

You may want owner comments and player comments to carry the same weight, but they don't. They're under two different set of rules. That's the way it is cry me a river build a bridge and get over it. Sterling signed up to adhere to the NBA bylaws. He broke the bylaw and he's being held accountable for his actions.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kobe-loses-mcdonalds-deal/

[GimmeThat]

Do we judge a person based on how he/she portrays themselves

or do we judge a person based on how others portray them for their self interest?


Sure, some people may not know how to best represent themselves.

But in the end, we look at facts, ones history, as well as the circumstances in which one made the error. And in the end, there are by laws in which Sterling had agreed upon in becoming an NBA owner.

If you can tell me what is the working hours of an owner, as well as define the venues in which an owner is working for his/her own business.

Then I will tell you again, he/she is held responsible for the by law in which he/she signed onto since the start of the ownership and until the termination and removal of so.



I suspect this is a good time for Cuban to read up on his by laws and what he had signed onto. If he wants change to happen, it ought to be in how the by laws protects the owners interest in terms of privacy and discrimination. If you can't change that, I am unaware of how the ruling changes as of right now.

Has any new information actually been released? Or has their just been people screaming on Hollywood Boulevard?

[gts]

Well you're right, the self righteous masses certainly can judge someone as being a terrible person for being judgmental if they want to. :lol But as far as I know, Gibson and Sheen weren't forced to give up their rights to a particular property on those grounds. Also, their comments were not private. Gibson was shouting his comments at police officers on the side of a public road. Sheen calls into radio shows and says the things he says.

Sterling was in his own home and the rules are different there than they are elsewhere. Just like walking around naked. You can do it in your home, but you can't do it everywhere.


Think about this. What if an owner was secretly videotaped making sweet, sweet love to another man in his bedroom, and the video was leaked. The team lost a bunch of conservative sponsorship and a bunch of fans protested. Chris Broussard rallied all his sauces near and far and led a boycotting crusade. Do you think the league would ban him for life, fine him 2.5 million dollars, and force him to sell the team?


The answer in that case, and the answer in Sterling's case, should be identical IMO or else we're talking massive hypocrisy.

The difference is society is moving one way on how it views racism and bigotry and the polar opposite direction when it comes to being gay... one is being embraced while one is being shunned

[Akrazotile]

The difference is society is moving one way on how it views racism and bigotry and the polar opposite direction when it comes to being gay... one is being embraced while one is being shunned


What does direction have to do with anything? Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage passed by a citizen vote at the ballot just a few years ago. If a popular sports franchise owner was caught having gay sex, it is POSSIBLE there would be a backlash, corporate and consumer. Having sex in your own home is a right and so is having an opinion. If you are going to punish one of them for public backlash, you would have to publish the other.

I do not believe the NBA would punish a gay owner despite consumer backlash. In other words, even if his private actions that were not intended as malicious or harmful, nor illegal, had a negative affect on the value of the team. They would not take these actions. The league is basically saying 'we're throwing rule and principle out the door here and just deciding on the fly what is right or wrong, and we're judge, jury, and executioner.'


Again, I would personally rather see the Clippers have a better owner than Sterling. But the PC police are annoying as fack and I dont want to see them claim another ill-gotten victory using intimidation and hypocrisy. Thats not a good look for America.

[GimmeThat]

Think about this. What if an owner was secretly videotaped making sweet, sweet love to another man in his bedroom, and the video was leaked. The team lost a bunch of conservative sponsorship and a bunch of fans protested. Chris Broussard rallied all his sauces near and far and led a boycotting crusade. Do you think the league would ban him for life, fine him 2.5 million dollars, and force him to sell the team?


The answer in that case, and the answer in Sterling's case, should be identical IMO or else we're talking massive hypocrisy.

In this case, it is the owner being discriminated by the fans.

Unless there are some parts of the by law in which the league is suppose to endorce discrimination on owners based upon monetary interest in which I am unaware of.


But yes, if there were fine prints written in ways you can't read printed on every single tickets sold to fans. The NBA may have legal rights to sue all its fans.

[GimmeThat]

What does direction have to do with anything? Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage passed by a citizen vote at the ballot just a few years ago. If a popular sports franchise owner was caught having gay sex, it is POSSIBLE there would be a backlash, corporate and consumer. Having sex in your own home is a right and so is having an opinion. If you are going to punish one of them for public backlash, you would have to publish the other.

I do not believe the NBA would punish a gay owner despite consumer backlash. In other words, even if his private actions that were not intended as malicious or harmful, nor illegal, had a negative affect on the value of the team. They would not take these actions. The league is basically saying 'we're throwing rule and principle out the door here and just deciding on the fly what is right or wrong, and we're judge, jury, and executioner.'


Again, I would personally rather see the Clippers have a better owner than Sterling. But the PC police are annoying as fack and I dont want to see them claim another ill-gotten victory using intimidation and hypocrisy. Thats not a good look for America.


Yes, only in this case, the citizens have already expressed their right by banning same sex marriage. And therefore, even if an owner was caught having gay sex in their own room, it does not automatically grants them the right to marriage.

While Sterlings case if went further down the road, would mean the discrimination of blacks attending his game. In this case, the only person capable of stopping him from doing so, IS the league.

What does direction have to do with anything? It's got everything to do with Cause and Effect.

[gts]

What does direction have to do with anything?

Everything... one (bigotry/racism) sends sponsors and other folks running for the hills as they try to get as far away from your stench as possible and one (being gay) barley draws a reaction anymore and in some cases even draws more folks in....

[Dresta]

lol @ all this obsession over sponsors. That is a nothing argument. There are numerous companies that will be willing to pay big bucks to be plastered all over NBA games and commercials. Just because one sponsor cuts ties does not mean another couldn't come in and offer even more money.

[Akrazotile]

Everything... one (bigotry/racism) sends sponsors and other folks running for the hills as they try to get as far away from your stench as possible and one (being gay) barley draws a reaction anymore and in some cases even draws more folks in....

It didn't send Magic fans running the other way.


And you're purposely avoiding the question.

Chik fil A recorded their biggest day of sales ever on the day it was announced pro-gay-marriage groups were boycotting them (or something to that effect, don't remember the exact circumstance). California passed a ban on same sex marriage. And you are trying to claim there's not even a POSSIBILITY that an owner caught having discreet man-sex could harm the marketability of a product many religious families take their children to. I'm not making the judgment, I personally wouldn't care, and I'm not saying it's foregone that it would have any effect... I'm saying that IF it did, the owners would have to ban him based on this precedent. And you don't have a logical grounds to disagree, so you're avoiding the example.

IMO you're clearly letting your personal feelings cloud your objectivity when it comes to due process. That seriously diminishes credibility.


If you ban him for a LEGAL action, with NO INTENT to do damage, based strictly on results... You would have to ban a gay owner if his brand incurred any backlash. If a guy supported a particular political party or candidate, and some fans soured... you'd have to ban him. Hell, if they made bad draft picks and the team sucked and the fans stopped showing up to games... you'd have to ban him for affecting marketability despite a lack of violation or intent.

[Jameerthefear]

It didn't send Magic fans running the other way.


And you're purposely avoiding the question.

Chik fil A recorded their biggest day of sales ever on the day it was announced pro-gay-marriage groups were boycotting them (or something to that effect, don't remember the exact circumstance). California passed a ban on same sex marriage. And you are trying to claim there's not even a POSSIBILITY that an owner caught having discreet man-sex could harm the marketability of a product many religious families take their children to. I'm not making the judgment, I personally wouldn't care, and I'm not saying it's foregone that it would have any effect... I'm saying that IF it did, the owners would have to ban him based on this precedent. And you don't have a logical grounds to disagree, so you're avoiding the example.

IMO you're clearly letting your personal feelings cloud your objectivity when it comes to due process. That seriously diminishes credibility.
headass

[ZenMaster]

Do we judge a person based on how he/she portrays themselves

or do we judge a person based on how others portray them for their self interest?


Sure, some people may not know how to best represent themselves.

But in the end, we look at facts, ones history, as well as the circumstances in which one made the error. And in the end, there are by laws in which Sterling had agreed upon in becoming an NBA owner.

If you can tell me what is the working hours of an owner, as well as define the venues in which an owner is working for his/her own business.

Then I will tell you again, he/she is held responsible for the by law in which he/she signed onto since the start of the ownership and until the termination and removal of so.



I suspect this is a good time for Cuban to read up on his by laws and what he had signed onto. If he wants change to happen, it ought to be in how the by laws protects the owners interest in terms of privacy and discrimination. If you can't change that, I am unaware of how the ruling changes as of right now.

Has any new information actually been released? Or has their just been people screaming on Hollywood Boulevard?

It is the by-laws as it states an owner has to wilfully commit an act that causes material harm to the league.

If you somehow wants to argue that when he says it he does it wilfully I would just point to the timeline and the fact that Sterling said this a months(?) ago and there was no material harm. It was only when the conversation was illegally made public that the material harm started happening.

The only new information is the PDF containing his response and defense, read the entire thing and you'll see has a good case in a court room.

[gts]

It is the by-laws as it states an owner has to wilfully commit an act that causes material harm to the league.

If you somehow wants to argue that when he says it he does it wilfully I would just point to the timeline and the fact that Sterling said this a months(?) ago and there was no material harm. It was only when the conversation was illegally made public that the material harm started happening.

The only new information is the PDF containing his response and defense, read the entire thing and you'll see has a good case in a court room.

And that is what the NBA is reacting to.. They don't care when it happened or how it got out, if it was legal or illegal...

It got out, that's not the NBA's problem, that's for Sterling to address in another forum should he want to pursue that avenue. Right now at this stage the league has decided Sterling has violated his contract with the league and they'll remove him as an owner

They are reacting to a certain situation and the fallout from that situation, not the collection of moments that led up to the situation.

[TOUCH MY BODY]

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/105/files/2014/03/DwanyeWadeTrollFaceStephenson.gif

[ZenMaster]

And that is what the NBA is reacting to.. They don't care when it happened or how it got out, if it was legal or illegal...

It got out, that's not the NBA's problem, that's for Sterling to address in another forum should he want to pursue that avenue. Right now at this stage the league has decided Sterling has violated his contract with the league and they'll remove him as an owner

They are reacting to a certain situation and the fallout from that situation, not the collection of moments that led up to the situation.

I see it differently, the by-laws state that it has to be broken with intent.

NBA can react all they want, doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

[guy]

It is the by-laws as it states an owner has to wilfully commit an act that causes material harm to the league.

If you somehow wants to argue that when he says it he does it wilfully I would just point to the timeline and the fact that Sterling said this a months(?) ago and there was no material harm. It was only when the conversation was illegally made public that the material harm started happening.

The only new information is the PDF containing his response and defense, read the entire thing and you'll see has a good case in a court room.

It was willful. He didn't have a gun to his head and was forced to say those things.

[Dresta]

It was willful. He didn't have a gun to his head and was forced to say those things.
I'm assuming his private recordings were released to the press against his will though. That makes it not willful.

[Akrazotile]

It was willful. He didn't have a gun to his head and was forced to say those things.


So if someone reads your post and then decides to go out and kill someone based on what you said, naturally it would make sense to say that you willfully caused someone's murder.





Ok.

[longtime lurker]

It was willful. He didn't have a gun to his head and was forced to say those things.

This. These idiots don't get it that he said these things of his own free will. He wasn't coerced into saying them. Really the only hope he had was to prove that the tape was doctored or that wasn't him. Once he admitted that its his voice its over. Again Team Sterling grasping at straws.

[guy]

I'm assuming his private recordings were released to the press against his will though. That makes it not willful.

His private recordings being released isn't the action being judged here though.

[guy]

So if someone reads your post and then decides to go out and kill someone based on what you said, naturally it would make sense to say that you willfully caused someone's murder.





Ok.

How the **** is that the same thing?