Clippers Owner Donald Sterling Audio Tape...

[calitennis127]

House! (Hi. ) You ask how long ago was the Civil Rights Movement. I'm pretty sure we're still in it. Yes, we still fight racism in this country, and this is part of the fight. Most people were appalled by what Sterling said, because he's a dinosaur and doesn't reflect the changing mores in this country.

Those changing mores which have led to thousands of black-on-black homicides in various cities, segregated schooling on a massive scale in this country, mass incarceration (1 out of every 3 black males ages 18 to 33 is in prison), welfare dependence of staggering proportions, and unemployment of black men as high as 50% in certain cities?

Is that the progress you cite?

Same with equality in marriage for example, as you cite gay rights. The world and this society moves beyond these people and their old ideas.

Sometimes "old ideas" are better than "new ideas", and it takes the "new ideas" running their course before people realize that the "old ideas" were always better than the "new ideas". Case and point was Communism - which was viewed as fashionable and trendy and cutting-edge, until it resulted in 100 million deaths in a single century and failed to deliver on any of its promises.

The movement for "gay marriage" is completely irrational, ignorant, immoral, and stupid. It is what the brainwashed masses have attached themselves to in order to feel intelligent. I hope they enjoy their Jason Collins fandom. I just hope they aren't learning how to play the post from him because he has never had a clue how to.

Should he be allowed to pursue his economic venture, in the capitalist sense of it? He gives opportunity to athletes of color.

Uhhhh, to put it mildly. Giving DeAndre Jordan the opportunity to make $10 million per year and live in Los Angeles when the man can't shoot free throws at a higher clip than 40% is far from the injustice of Uncle Tom's Cabin.

 

[Moxie]

Personally don't agree with this punishment. Just because someone thinks a certain way, a ridiculously wrong way, they can lose their businesses?

Prefaced by saying I agree with absolutely nothing he said or thought, but a lifetime ban seems more like a flashy "Look at how we came down on this guy media!" then a punishment that actually fits the crime.

Was he oppressing black athletes? No. Was he purposefully filling his teams with all white players? No. Did he commit any crimes? No. Was he an incredible bigot? Absolutely yes. Does that mean he should have his lively hood and property, I only assume he paid for the training facilities and things of that nature but I may be wrong, taken from him. I'm not sure.

It's strange as a society how we ignore and repress our nations history with African Americans. The notion that people are "SHOCKED!" that there are individuals who think the way he does about black people is startling to me. How long ago was the civil rights movement? There still exist those out there who grew up on the type of hate and bigotry Donald believes in. That upbringing, and mentality, didn't suddenly disperse when MLK hit the scene. It shouldn't shock anyone. Racism is still a thing. No matter how much we try to sweep it under the rug. It's wrong no question. But hiding from it doesn't fix anything either.

So while this decision satisfies the emotional side of my brain, the analytical side is left wanting.

Can't wait til people become this offended publicly for homosexuals being denied rights. Oppressed minorities abound in this country it seems...

RANT OFF:

House! (Hi. ) You ask how long ago was the Civil Rights Movement. I'm pretty sure we're still in it. Yes, we still fight racism in this country, and this is part of the fight. Most people were appalled by what Sterling said, because he's a dinosaur and doesn't reflect the changing mores in this country. Same with equality in marriage for example, as you cite gay rights. The world and this society moves beyond these people and their old ideas. And they don't get a pass because they're from a different generation.

Should he be allowed to pursue his economic venture, in the capitalist sense of it? He gives opportunity to athletes of color. But his advantage is money, and he makes even more money off of people that he diminishes, because of their race. I say no. The NBA is also a brand, which it needs to protect. Their franchises, especially like LA, make money…hand over fist. They don't have to go hat in hand to any billionaire that wants to own a team. I'm pretty sure that players sign some morality clause. Owners then should at least be held to a similar standard. This isn't just a venture that Sterling invests in. He's part of the NBA, and the NBA should have a right to decide if he deserves to be part of their overall image. Sterling has shown himself to be a pig, and the NBA did right to dump him.

Yeah I'm just not sure "Think like us, or else." was really what MLK was going for.

I'm not giving him a pass by any means. But for the vast majority of this nation, when they talk or read about the civil rights movement it was. "A long time ago." Not so much. These people still exist, and they own businesses and work. So while the NBA in its structure has every right to get rid of Sterling, I don't really feel like any real justice is getting done here. It just seems like the easy way out.

Is it a witch hunt now? Are players held to the same standards of racial equality? Because Larry Bird caught tremendous flack for the attention he received , and some black players said, "He's over hyped because he's white." Jeremy Lin caught attention and received similar comments about him being Asian. It just seems like weird slippery slope to me.

And I would also like to say I am more than happy to agree to disagree on this issue. It's complex on many levels, and there's a lot of personal feelings wrapped up in these types of issues.

It is complex, and I'll agree that's why it's difficult to find the exact tone or to stand on one thing, because it's about a racist bigot and it's about capitalism and opportunity, as well. I'm not sure what I said to imply "think like this or else," as you seem to be paraphrasing me. I think you'd have to justify that.

One thing I'm saying is that, just because his money is plentiful, it's not the only money that's good, and some is better than others. I.e., you don't have to get in bed with a racist to have a rich sponsor for a franchise. And I think it's ok if the NBA decides that.

 

[House]

Personally don't agree with this punishment. Just because someone thinks a certain way, a ridiculously wrong way, they can lose their businesses?

Prefaced by saying I agree with absolutely nothing he said or thought, but a lifetime ban seems more like a flashy "Look at how we came down on this guy media!" then a punishment that actually fits the crime.

Was he oppressing black athletes? No. Was he purposefully filling his teams with all white players? No. Did he commit any crimes? No. Was he an incredible bigot? Absolutely yes. Does that mean he should have his lively hood and property, I only assume he paid for the training facilities and things of that nature but I may be wrong, taken from him. I'm not sure.

It's strange as a society how we ignore and repress our nations history with African Americans. The notion that people are "SHOCKED!" that there are individuals who think the way he does about black people is startling to me. How long ago was the civil rights movement? There still exist those out there who grew up on the type of hate and bigotry Donald believes in. That upbringing, and mentality, didn't suddenly disperse when MLK hit the scene. It shouldn't shock anyone. Racism is still a thing. No matter how much we try to sweep it under the rug. It's wrong no question. But hiding from it doesn't fix anything either.

So while this decision satisfies the emotional side of my brain, the analytical side is left wanting.

Can't wait til people become this offended publicly for homosexuals being denied rights. Oppressed minorities abound in this country it seems...

RANT OFF:

House! (Hi. ) You ask how long ago was the Civil Rights Movement. I'm pretty sure we're still in it. Yes, we still fight racism in this country, and this is part of the fight. Most people were appalled by what Sterling said, because he's a dinosaur and doesn't reflect the changing mores in this country. Same with equality in marriage for example, as you cite gay rights. The world and this society moves beyond these people and their old ideas. And they don't get a pass because they're from a different generation.

Should he be allowed to pursue his economic venture, in the capitalist sense of it? He gives opportunity to athletes of color. But his advantage is money, and he makes even more money off of people that he diminishes, because of their race. I say no. The NBA is also a brand, which it needs to protect. Their franchises, especially like LA, make money…hand over fist. They don't have to go hat in hand to any billionaire that wants to own a team. I'm pretty sure that players sign some morality clause. Owners then should at least be held to a similar standard. This isn't just a venture that Sterling invests in. He's part of the NBA, and the NBA should have a right to decide if he deserves to be part of their overall image. Sterling has shown himself to be a pig, and the NBA did right to dump him.

Yeah I'm just not sure "Think like us, or else." was really what MLK was going for.

I'm not giving him a pass by any means. But for the vast majority of this nation, when they talk or read about the civil rights movement it was. "A long time ago." Not so much. These people still exist, and they own businesses and work. So while the NBA in its structure has every right to get rid of Sterling, I don't really feel like any real justice is getting done here. It just seems like the easy way out.

Is it a witch hunt now? Are players held to the same standards of racial equality? Because Larry Bird caught tremendous flack for the attention he received , and some black players said, "He's over hyped because he's white." Jeremy Lin caught attention and received similar comments about him being Asian. It just seems like weird slippery slope to me.

And I would also like to say I am more than happy to agree to disagree on this issue. It's complex on many levels, and there's a lot of personal feelings wrapped up in these types of issues.

It is complex, and I'll agree that's why it's difficult to find the exact tone or to stand on one thing, because it's about a racist bigot and it's about capitalism and opportunity, as well. I'm not sure what I said to imply "think like this or else," as you seem to be paraphrasing me. I think you'd have to justify that.

One thing I'm saying is that, just because his money is plentiful, it's not the only money that's good, and some is better than others. I.e., you don't have to get in bed with a racist to have a rich sponsor for a franchise. And I think it's ok if the NBA decides that.

I'm not attributing "think like us or else" to you. Only to the situation as a whole. It seems like because he doesn't share the save views on equality, he should be punished. I'm not sure what that's solving. He's wrong clearly, but I disagree that he should lose the team over it.

Apologies if you felt I was directing it at you, or something you said specifically. Not my intention.

Like I said before. The NBA has every right to do what they're doing. I just don't agree with the decisions. It's an easy out for them. Because they had no problem letting him be a bigot when the public was oblivious. But as soon as they have to sleep in the bed they allowed Sterling to make, they cut and run and are heralded as "Champions of justice."

 

[calitennis127]

It is complex, and I'll agree that's why it's difficult to find the exact tone or to stand on one thing, because it's about a racist bigot and it's about capitalism and opportunity, as well. I'm not sure what I said to imply "think like this or else," as you seem to be paraphrasing me. I think you'd have to justify that.

One thing I'm saying is that, just because his money is plentiful, it's not the only money that's good, and some is better than others. I.e., you don't have to get in bed with a racist to have a rich sponsor for a franchise. And I think it's ok if the NBA decides that.

Coming from someone who likes what is, in a very significant way, probably the whitest professional sport (tennis) more than any other professional sport and who does not have the slightest connection with the black culture that predominates in the NFL or the NBA.

 

[DarthFed]

It was always going to be a mess. A lot of excellent points were made and the main thing is the guy was in the privacy of his home and made some horrible statements and it is costing him the ownership of his team and tons of other damage to his name and businesses. No crime was committed and it is a classic freedom of speech case.

Very few will agree with what Sterling said and most properly see him as a waste of DNA but should he lose everything for it? No, he shouldn't. But should the Clippers' players have to be put in the situation where they are either boycotting or playing for a guy who sees himself as the owner of a slave plantation? No, they shouldn't. And that's the problem. The NBA was always going to protect the players here and the only way to do that was to flex their muscle and force Sterling out. It might be a little wrong but it also might be a little right.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

House! (Hi. ) You ask how long ago was the Civil Rights Movement. I'm pretty sure we're still in it. Yes, we still fight racism in this country, and this is part of the fight. Most people were appalled by what Sterling said, because he's a dinosaur and doesn't reflect the changing mores in this country.

Those changing mores which have led to thousands of black-on-black homicides in various cities, segregated schooling on a massive scale in this country, mass incarceration (1 out of every 3 black males ages 18 to 33 is in prison), welfare dependence of staggering proportions, and unemployment of black men as high as 50% in certain cities?

Is that the progress you cite?

Same with equality in marriage for example, as you cite gay rights. The world and this society moves beyond these people and their old ideas.

Sometimes "old ideas" are better than "new ideas", and it takes the "new ideas" running their course before people realize that the "old ideas" were always better than the "new ideas". Case and point was Communism - which was viewed as fashionable and trendy and cutting-edge, until it resulted in 100 million deaths in a single century and failed to deliver on any of its promises.

The movement for "gay marriage" is completely irrational, ignorant, immoral, and stupid. It is what the brainwashed masses have attached themselves to in order to feel intelligent. I hope they enjoy their Jason Collins fandom. I just hope they aren't learning how to play the post from him because he has never had a clue how to.

Should he be allowed to pursue his economic venture, in the capitalist sense of it? He gives opportunity to athletes of color.

Uhhhh, to put it mildly. Giving DeAndre Jordan the opportunity to make $10 million per year and live in Los Angeles when the man can't shoot free throws at a higher clip than 40% is far from the injustice of Uncle Tom's Cabin.

I don't see any justification in the bolded statement. Can you provides ome?

 

[tented]

A sterling Sterling nightmare: a black woman, a gay Jew, and another Jew join together to try to buy the team:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10861503/oprah-winfrey-group-considering-bid-buy-los-angeles-clippers

 

[DarthFed]

It seems that Sterling is going to try and fight this even if they get the 3/4 vote needed. This could still get really messy yet.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It seems that Sterling is going to try and fight this even if they get the 3/4 vote needed. This could still get really messy yet.

Based on Jeffrey Tuben's comments on CNN, Sterling has no chance of winning in court
if 3/4 vote happens.

An interesting scenario would be if the other owners could pressurize Sterling to sell
on his own without really voting on the issue. That would protect their own interests
as there will not be any precedent set.

Finally, a diabolical conspiracy theory. In American Culture, there is no publicity is
bad publicity. What if the whole audio tape issue was actually a master plan by Sterling
himself, just to generate publicity so that he can sell off the team for a much larger
price than he would get for selling it under normal circumstances. Who released the
tape? The GF's attorney claims she was not the one who released.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The guy is a douche and a racist, I am sure we all agree with that.

Anybody uncomfortable though, with the fact that someone(douche or not) is losing a business because of a conversation he thought was private, probably had in his own home, recorded by someone with not so nice motives?

I am not too happy with all this...This can open a whole different can of worms, no?

The situation here is that the conversation is basically the last straw that broke the
camel. He seems to have long history of this sort of things.

If someone had a clean reputation and there was one conversation like this which he
thought was private, it probably would not ruin him. Just accumulated Karma.

Totally disagree. This guy could have been the world leader in charitable activity and these comments still would have finished him off.

Actually, upon further thinking I agree with you. Even if he were a saint, for some reason
these comments would have finished him off. But, this kind of over the top reaction definitely
shows the inability of the American society to deal with race issues in a honest and direct
manner. These over the top reactions do not certainly change people's minds. At best it
would make people be cautious in talking or use codewords in talking.

Even though I do agree with you, I still don't feel bad for what happened to Sterling
as I believe it is due to accumulated Karma as I said in the post above.

 

[DarthFed]

It seems that Sterling is going to try and fight this even if they get the 3/4 vote needed. This could still get really messy yet.

Based on Jeffrey Tuben's comments on CNN, Sterling has no chance of winning in court
if 3/4 vote happens.

An interesting scenario would be if the other owners could pressurize Sterling to sell
on his own without really voting on the issue. That would protect their own interests
as there will not be any precedent set.

Finally, a diabolical conspiracy theory. In American Culture, there is no publicity is
bad publicity. What if the whole audio tape issue was actually a master plan by Sterling
himself, just to generate publicity so that he can sell off the team for a much larger
price than he would get for selling it under normal circumstances. Who released the
tape? The GF's attorney claims she was not the one who released.

There is no conspiracy theory here. If she didn't release it herself (and that's a big IF), I'd imagine she willingly gave it to whoever did release it and is now acting like she had nothing to do with it. The Clippers would have been sold at a high price regardless as the team is now very good and it is in LA. So there would be no motive for Sterling to become the most hated man in sports overnight.

There is no doubt they will get the 3/4 needed but I'd be interested to hear the reasoning as to why he thinks Sterling would have no chance in court. Remember, no crime was committed and there is currently no evidence that Sterling has acted on his racist beliefs in regards to his team (at least not recently). I'd think the NBA would be the one with the burden to prove that it is necessary to force the sale of ownership.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It seems that Sterling is going to try and fight this even if they get the 3/4 vote needed. This could still get really messy yet.

Based on Jeffrey Tuben's comments on CNN, Sterling has no chance of winning in court
if 3/4 vote happens.

An interesting scenario would be if the other owners could pressurize Sterling to sell
on his own without really voting on the issue. That would protect their own interests
as there will not be any precedent set.

Finally, a diabolical conspiracy theory. In American Culture, there is no publicity is
bad publicity. What if the whole audio tape issue was actually a master plan by Sterling
himself, just to generate publicity so that he can sell off the team for a much larger
price than he would get for selling it under normal circumstances. Who released the
tape? The GF's attorney claims she was not the one who released.

There is no conspiracy theory here. If she didn't release it herself (and that's a big IF), I'd imagine she willingly gave it to whoever did release it and is now acting like she had nothing to do with it. The Clippers would have been sold at a high price regardless as the team is now very good and it is in LA. So there would be no motive for Sterling to become the most hated man in sports overnight.

There is no doubt they will get the 3/4 needed but I'd be interested to hear the reasoning as to why he thinks Sterling would have no chance in court. Remember, no crime was committed and there is currently no evidence that Sterling has acted on his racist beliefs in regards to his team (at least not recently). I'd think the NBA would be the one with the burden to prove that it is necessary to force the sale of ownership.

Answering the question in your last para. I am sure you must have heard many times
now that this has nothing to do with constitution or government. It is bound by the
contract that the owners and the NBA signed together. According to that contract,
all decisions by the league are final and a owner cannot sue in court. It goes by
the contract law.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't think it'd be suing the NBA, it would be a case of whether or not the NBA has the right to take over the team based on racist statements made in his own home.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ I don't think it'd be suing the NBA, it would be a case of whether or not the NBA has the right to take over the team based on racist statements made in his own home.

That is where the suing comes in. The NBA thinks they have the right to take over.
If Donald disagrees, he would sue.

Apparently, as per the contract signed by them all, no reason is needed and they
can force out anyone as long as they have the votes. Hence, Donald will fail if the
votes are in and he tries to sue.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't think it'd be suing the NBA, it would be a case of whether or not the NBA has the right to take over the team based on racist statements made in his own home.

That is where the suing comes in. The NBA thinks they have the right to take over.
If Donald disagrees, he would sue.

Apparently, as per the contract signed by them all, no reason is needed and they
can force out anyone as long as they have the votes. Hence, Donald will fail if the
votes are in and he tries to sue.

I am no legal expert but I would think the contract would have a clause basically stating that there must be a justifiable reason for removing an owner, otherwise the league and owners could gang up on any owner for any reason.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^You would think there would be a clause saying " In case of dispute, so and so has jurisdiction ..." or something to that effect. I have seen many cases resolved in The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) . I am not sure if this case would apply here though...

 

[DarthFed]

I hope he doesn't end up disputing it. It is best for everyone involved, even Sterling, to have the team be sold. Say he wins in court and keeps the team, does he really win in the long run? The quicker it's sold, the quicker the spotlight is off him and he can live out his days with the billions he has. But the old man likely has a lot of pride and I can't fault anyone for that but that might drag this out.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^You would think there would be a clause saying " In case of dispute, so and so has jurisdiction ..." or something to that effect. I have seen many cases resolved in The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) . I am not sure if this case would apply here though...

Actually, this part I am very sure (unlike the original part, where I used the qualifying
phrase "apparently" to indicate my lack of complete knowledge). If 3/4 of the owners vote
and the league approves, the decision to force out is final and binding. It cannot be
appealed. This much is explicitly written in the contract.

Even though the decision is binding, sometimes people sue over it too and usually,
the court will look into the details and then decide not to take up the case, unless there
is some drastic violation of something considered very basic. It is widely expected that the
courts will not take up the case if Donald sues.

I see only two possibilities now.

a. they vote him out and force the sale.
b. As Donald is one of them (in the sense that he is a fellow owner) and to protect
their own interests, they may try to bring some gentle pressure on Donald to
sell it voluntarily so that they can avoid voting in the first place.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The following is a cut and paste from a CNN article.

Does a lawsuit have a chance?

All the NBA owners signed a waiver saying they would not sue the NBA, sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler said on CNN's The Lead, but that may not stop Sterling.

"He might make an argument that if he has an antitrust claim that waiver would not apply," Kessler said. To make that claim, he'd have to show that something in the process was not competitive, Kessler said.

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the odds of Sterling winning a case "seem basically zero."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The Irony is the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the NBA is himself a shady guy.

Before the announcement about Sterling's suspension, Minnesota Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor was the only owner suspended in the NBA in 68 years. The league suspended Taylor in 2000 for a season after the Timberwolves made a secret deal with a star player to circumvent salary cap rules. Now, Taylor is chairman of the NBA board of governors, which Commissioner Adam Silver has asked to vote on stripping Sterling's ownership of the Clippers.