Donald Sterling up to his old tricks
- Thread starter TyFreak Evans
- Start date
- Status
Interesting article from Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/
In my opinion Cap nailed it.
http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/
In my opinion Cap nailed it.
mark cuban might, on principle. but i can't imagine that adam silver wouldn't have enough votes. for years, the league's other 29 owners enabled donald sterling's racist behavior in part because he was also a terrible steward of his franchise. from a competitive standpoint, donald sterling was a godsend for decades. but now that the clippers are a talented and winning team, there's simply no incentive not to give sterling the boot...
Don't get me wrong I think the NBA will be better off without Donald Sterling but count me among those that are surprised at the furor over this taped conversation.
Donald Sterling drove black and latino families out of their homes and made no secret about why and everyone in power in the NBA looked the other way or ignored it completely.
Donald Sterling was a consistently terrible owner whose cheapskate ways kept the Clippers as perennial doormats for decades. He even managed to pair his racism and skinflint nature when he said of Danny Manning's contract offer, "that's a lot of money for a poor, black kid".
Then he tells his mistress in a private conversation that he doesn't want her hanging around publicly with black men because his rich, old, white buddies wouldn't like it.
That's the straw that broke the camel's back? Really? You can't tell me there wasn't proof before - the man paid a multimillion dollar settlement for discrimination related to forcing minorities out of his buildings. Yeah, what he said on tape was awful and close-minded. But what he actually DID to people in the not so distant past was far worse IMO and no one in the NBA held his feet to the fire for it.
I actually think Cuban is taking the right approach to saying that you can't forcibly divest someone of property because of something they said in private, no matter how repugnant it is. If this is the incident that gets Sterling out of the league then fine, it's a good thing overall but he should have been pushed out years ago for more substantial reasons.
Donald Sterling drove black and latino families out of their homes and made no secret about why and everyone in power in the NBA looked the other way or ignored it completely.
Donald Sterling was a consistently terrible owner whose cheapskate ways kept the Clippers as perennial doormats for decades. He even managed to pair his racism and skinflint nature when he said of Danny Manning's contract offer, "that's a lot of money for a poor, black kid".
Then he tells his mistress in a private conversation that he doesn't want her hanging around publicly with black men because his rich, old, white buddies wouldn't like it.
That's the straw that broke the camel's back? Really? You can't tell me there wasn't proof before - the man paid a multimillion dollar settlement for discrimination related to forcing minorities out of his buildings. Yeah, what he said on tape was awful and close-minded. But what he actually DID to people in the not so distant past was far worse IMO and no one in the NBA held his feet to the fire for it.
I actually think Cuban is taking the right approach to saying that you can't forcibly divest someone of property because of something they said in private, no matter how repugnant it is. If this is the incident that gets Sterling out of the league then fine, it's a good thing overall but he should have been pushed out years ago for more substantial reasons.
Eh, I can't do anything more than speculate as to "why now," as opposed to "why not then," so I will simply re-state my personal opinion, as to "why not then," which I already posted in this thread:
IYAM, that's why. They let him get away with it because they all let themselves think, "He ain't talking about me!"
I disagree, one hundred percent.
In the first place, as I stated before, we don't actually know that he was recorded without his knowledge or consent. It's probably safe to say that the recording was released without his consent, but that's not illegal. In the second place, since it's not being admitted as evidence in a criminal or civil suit, it doesn't really matter if it was private. That's not any more illegal than your cousin catching you acting like a dumbass at the family reunion, and posting it on YouTube.
And, thirdly, now that it has been made public, just as sure as Donald Sterling has a "right" to be a racist in private, all of the Clippers' sponsors have the right to say, "Well, I don't want to be associated with a known racist," and take their money away. And, when you start to have sponsorship withdrawing money, the other owners have to wake up and pay attention. They have to start asking themselves, "Well, if I don't vote Sterling out, could that happen to me?" It is apparently in the league's constitution that the BOG can vote him out with seventy-five percent of ownership. I fully expect for these rich old guys to look at the potential ad money leaving their pockets, and decide that that supersedes Donald Sterling's right to be a prick.
CarMax, Virgin America, Chumash Casino, Mercedes-Benz, all gone. State Farm, Yokohama Tire, Kia America, Red Bull, Lumber Liquidators, suspending sponsorship. You don't think the other owners are going to look at that and get him out of there?
IYAM, that's why. They let him get away with it because they all let themselves think, "He ain't talking about me!"
I disagree, one hundred percent.
In the first place, as I stated before, we don't actually know that he was recorded without his knowledge or consent. It's probably safe to say that the recording was released without his consent, but that's not illegal. In the second place, since it's not being admitted as evidence in a criminal or civil suit, it doesn't really matter if it was private. That's not any more illegal than your cousin catching you acting like a dumbass at the family reunion, and posting it on YouTube.
And, thirdly, now that it has been made public, just as sure as Donald Sterling has a "right" to be a racist in private, all of the Clippers' sponsors have the right to say, "Well, I don't want to be associated with a known racist," and take their money away. And, when you start to have sponsorship withdrawing money, the other owners have to wake up and pay attention. They have to start asking themselves, "Well, if I don't vote Sterling out, could that happen to me?" It is apparently in the league's constitution that the BOG can vote him out with seventy-five percent of ownership. I fully expect for these rich old guys to look at the potential ad money leaving their pockets, and decide that that supersedes Donald Sterling's right to be a prick.
CarMax, Virgin America, Chumash Casino, Mercedes-Benz, all gone. State Farm, Yokohama Tire, Kia America, Red Bull, Lumber Liquidators, suspending sponsorship. You don't think the other owners are going to look at that and get him out of there?
Last edited:
The people who are offering tepid defenses of Sterling are right that the way the information surfaced taints everything about this subject.
That said, Sterling isn't losing any property if he is forced out. He will be offered a giant mountain of cash for the value of the Clippers. This isn't a forceful seizure. This is a private entity (the NBA) exercising contractual rights to force out a person who does not comport with the terms and image the NBA wants to present. There is nothing sinister in the NBA's moves.
That said, Sterling isn't losing any property if he is forced out. He will be offered a giant mountain of cash for the value of the Clippers. This isn't a forceful seizure. This is a private entity (the NBA) exercising contractual rights to force out a person who does not comport with the terms and image the NBA wants to present. There is nothing sinister in the NBA's moves.
No, they're not, and no, it doesn't.
As ESP47 (ineffectively) tried to point out, this isn't a perfect world. Not everyone does the right thing for the right reasons. Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Bringing Sterling's racism to light was still the right thing to do. And frankly, if we live in a society where the nature of why or how a despicable bigot's racist behavior was brought to light is enough to detract or "taint" the message itself, that reflects more poorly on our society than it does the how or the why.
As ESP47 (ineffectively) tried to point out, this isn't a perfect world. Not everyone does the right thing for the right reasons. Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Bringing Sterling's racism to light was still the right thing to do. And frankly, if we live in a society where the nature of why or how a despicable bigot's racist behavior was brought to light is enough to detract or "taint" the message itself, that reflects more poorly on our society than it does the how or the why.
What is going to make this ugly are the rumors already popping up that Sterling will fight this. I applaud Silver and the NBA for their swift actions but if Sterling makes a mess out of this which drags on for months or even years, the Clippers as we know them might get dismantled. I don't see Doc returning and see players wanting to force their way out if Sterling is still technically the owner this summer.
If I was Doc or a Clippers player, I wouldn't want to play/coach in LA next year if Sterling still owns the team and is fighting against punishment handed out by the league.
If I was Doc or a Clippers player, I wouldn't want to play/coach in LA next year if Sterling still owns the team and is fighting against punishment handed out by the league.
A minor quibble. My understanding of the California wiretap statute (Cal. Penal Code section 632) is that it requires consent from all parties with a reasonable expectation of privacy. The gold digger now claims that he asked her to record the conversations (very convenient, that). That doesn't mean that releasing the tapes was legal, especially in light of her attorneys' threats of retaliatory harm for the lawsuits against the gold digger. In any case, releasing recordings of private conversations, even if they were authorized recordings, would be actionable in civil law as a breach of privacy. I'm assuming the gold-digger is judgment proof, but TMZ certainly isn't.
Bringing the racism to light was a good thing. Had it been done outside the context of an ugly lawsuit between a jilted wife and a former mistress, it would have been better. Right now, the timing is very convenient for the gold-digger. Had she brought the tapes out immediately after the conversation, you would be right.
However, the right to privacy is still an important part of the fabric of society. If you have to sacrifice privacy to uphold the 14th amendment, so be it, but you can't wish away the cost just because the benefit is greater.
However, the right to privacy is still an important part of the fabric of society. If you have to sacrifice privacy to uphold the 14th amendment, so be it, but you can't wish away the cost just because the benefit is greater.
I can't help but notice your determination to poison the well by referring to Ms. Stiviano as "the gold digger."
I happen to think that her claims that he asked her to record the conversations are more than merely "convenient." I personally think that they remove any possible doubt or "taint" from the recordings themselves. As far as the alleged threats of retaliatory harm... like I said before, people aren't compelled to do the right thing for the right reasons. AFAIK, Stiviano didn't do anything illegal, it's up to each individual poster to decide whether they think she did anything "wrong."
I happen to think that her claims that he asked her to record the conversations are more than merely "convenient." I personally think that they remove any possible doubt or "taint" from the recordings themselves. As far as the alleged threats of retaliatory harm... like I said before, people aren't compelled to do the right thing for the right reasons. AFAIK, Stiviano didn't do anything illegal, it's up to each individual poster to decide whether they think she did anything "wrong."
I think that is one of the big questions. Why didn't the NBA act sooner.
But I think Silver answered that question in a round-about way.
When asked about why they didn't do anything when the Elgin Baylor had his lawsuit Silver said that they league followed closely but Baylor did not prevail.
My guess is that they have been following these things for a while just hoping that something definitive would stick so they could oust him. And this was the first thing they had concrete proof of to use. So they would have ousted him if any of the previous incidents had succeeded in showing proof of Sterling's frame of mind.
But I think Silver answered that question in a round-about way.
When asked about why they didn't do anything when the Elgin Baylor had his lawsuit Silver said that they league followed closely but Baylor did not prevail.
My guess is that they have been following these things for a while just hoping that something definitive would stick so they could oust him. And this was the first thing they had concrete proof of to use. So they would have ousted him if any of the previous incidents had succeeded in showing proof of Sterling's frame of mind.
- Status