Donald Sterling up to his old tricks

[Padrino]

for those interested, RealGM has released an excerpt from the NBA's Constitution and By-Laws, which were made available to the media by the league (silver is really making good on his promise of transparency since he took over as commish):

ARTICLE 13

TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

(b) Transfer or attempt to transfer a Membership or an interest in a Member without complying with the provisions of Article 5.

(c) Fail to pay any dues or other indebtedness owing to the Association within thirty (30) days after Written Notice from the Commissioner of default in such payment.

(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely. (e) Wager or countenance wagering by its officers or employees on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.

(f) Willfully permit open betting, pool selling, or any other form of gambling upon any premises owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the Member or an Owner, except, subject to Article 8(a), for gambling activities that are lawful in the applicable jurisdiction and do not involve in any way, directly or indirectly, gambling with respect to any aspect of the Association’s games, events, property, players, or other personnel.

(g) Offer, agree, conspire, or attempt to lose or control the score of any game participated in by a Team operated by a Member of the Association, or fail to suspend immediately any officer or any Player or other employee of the Member who shall be found guilty, in a court of law or in any hearing sanctioned by this Constitution and By- Laws, of offering, agreeing, conspiring, or attempting to lose or control the score of any such game or of being interested in any pool or wager on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.

(h) Disband its Team during the Season, dissolve its business, or cease its operation.

(i) Willfully fail to present its Team at the time and place it is scheduled to play in an Exhibition, Regular Season, or Playoff Game.

(j) Willfully misrepresent any material fact contained in its application for Membership in the Association.

ARTICLE 14
PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATION

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner shall be terminated on the occurrence of any of the events described in Article 13 by the following procedure:

(a) Any Member of the Association or the Commissioner may charge that a Member or Owner has violated one (1) or more of the provisions of Article 13. Said charge shall be made in Writing and shall be filed with the Commissioner, who shall, no later than three (3) business days after the charges are filed, cause a copy thereof to be served by a Writing upon the Member or Owner against whom such charges have been made. (b) The Member or Owner so charged shall, within five (5) days after receipt of the charges, file with the Commissioner its written answer thereto. The Commissioner shall thereupon transmit said charges and answer to each of the Governors of the Association and shall call a special meeting of the Governors to hear the charges, to be held on a date not more than ten (10) days after the filing of a Member’s or Owner’s answer, due notice to be given.

(c) Willful failure by a Member or Owner so charged to answer the charges during such five (5) day period or to appear at the hearing shall be deemed an admission by said Member or Owner of the total validity of the charges as presented.

(d) At such hearing, the Chairman of the Board of Governors shall be the presiding officer, except that if the Chairman of the Board of Governors represents either the complaining Member or the Member charged, then the Commissioner shall designate an alternate Chairman for purposes of the hearing.

(e) At the hearing, the Member or Owner so charged shall have the right to be represented by counsel. Strict rules of evidence shall not apply, and all relevant and material evidence submitted prior to and at the hearing may be received and considered.

(f) After duly considering all the evidence, the Board of Governors shall vote upon the proposition that the charges have been sustained in whole or in part. The affirmative vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all the Governors shall be required to sustain the charges.

(g) If, by a three-fourths (3/4) vote, the Board of Governors votes to sustain the charges, the Membership of the guilty Member or the Member in which the guilty Owner has an interest shall automatically be terminated, unless, following a motion duly made and seconded, two-thirds (2/3) of all the Governors vote instead to terminate the ownership interest of the guilty Owner or to invoke the provisions of Article 15. (h) Notwithstanding Article 14(g) above, in the case of a violation of Article 13 by an Owner who has an interest of ten percent (10%) or less in, and does not have effective control over, a Member, the Membership of such Member may not be terminated solely because of such Owner’s violation. In such case, if the charges are sustained against such Owner by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of the Board of Governors, the ownership interest of that Owner shall be automatically terminated unless, following a motion duly made and seconded, twothirds (2/3) of all the Governors vote to invoke the provisions of Article 15.

(i) If any Membership or interest of an Owner shall be terminated pursuant to this Article 14, the provisions of Article 14A shall apply.

(j) The decisions of the Association made in accordance with the foregoing procedure shall be final, binding, and conclusive, and each Member and Owner waives any and all recourse to any court of law to review any such decision.

ARTICLE 14A
CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION

(a) When the Membership of a Member is terminated, such Member and its assets, properties and operations shall be placed under the management and control of the Commissioner, who shall have the following powers: to cause the Member’s Team to continue to play its Exhibition, Regular Season, and Playoff Games; to collect all revenues from every source payable to the Member and apply such revenues, to the extent available, to the payment of such Member’s debts and obligations; and, as directed by a majority of the Board of Governors (the Member whose Membership was terminated not being considered a Member of the Board of Governors for the purposes of this Article), either to transfer such Member’s Membership (including its Player Contracts and other assets) in accordance with and subject to Article 5 or to liquidate the Player Contracts and other assets of the Member in an orderly manner in the best interests of the Member and its creditors, and the Association, in each case at such prices and on such terms as the Commissioner shall deem reasonable and appropriate.

(b) When the interest of any Owner is terminated, that interest shall, unless the Commissioner has approved an alternative arrangement, be placed under the management and control of the Commissioner, who shall have the power to exercise all of the rights otherwise exercisable by the Owner of that interest, including, but not limited to, any management or voting rights and the right to transfer all or any portion of that interest in accordance with and subject to Article 5 at such prices and on such terms as the Commissioner shall deem reasonable and appropriate.

(c) All proceeds from any transfer of a Member’s Membership or the liquidation of its Player Contracts and other assets, or of an Owner’s interest in a Member, shall be applied first to discharge the liabilities and obligations to all creditors of the Member (or Owner), including the Association and its Members but excluding any Owner of the Member, second to discharge the liabilities and obligations to any Owner of the Member, and any balance shall be remitted to the Member (or Owner). The existence or implementation of this Article 14A shall not impose upon the Association or any of its Members any requirement to provide funds to any Member (or Owner) or any liability for any debts or obligations of any Member (or Owner). ARTICLE 15
ALTERNATIVES TO TERMINATION

If a charge that a Member or Owner has committed any of the offenses described in Article 13 is sustained, two-thirds (2/3) of all the Governors may waive the remedy of termination, and instead direct the Member or Owner to pay a stated fine in a stipulated manner and by a stipulated date, which fine may be required to be paid, in whole or in part, to any other Member or Members as compensation to such Member or Members for damages sustained by it or them by reason of such act or acts of omission or commission by such offending Member or Owner. Such fine shall be payable within five (5) days after its imposition. Moreover, the Board of Governors may, in its discretion, either in addition to, or in lieu of, such fine, direct the forfeiture of the offending Member’s Draft rights.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/233171/NBA-Constitution-Excerpt-On-Termination-Of-Ownership

 

[Hoovtrain]

It would have been better, without question, but the fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that it doesn't count; it doesn't invalidate the truth of the situation.

You have the right to privacy, as it pertains to the government. You don't have the "right" to privacy, as it pertains to your neighbor, or your mistress. Sterling has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but his rights were not violated. Stiviano didn't eavesdrop on him; if you believe her claims (and I have no reason not to), she recorded their conversations with his knowledge and consent. She didn't violate his privacy: it's not, substantively, any different from if you took naked pictures of your partner, and then posted them on the internet after you broke up. It's not a "rights" issue; if she had written a "tell-all" book, instead of emailing the conversation to TMZ, he wouldn't get to cry "rights." How is this any different?

Huh? You absolutely have the right to privacy as it pertains to your neighbor, mistress. If she recorded their private conversations without his knowledge, she most certainly did violate his privacy and can be sued by him under federal law.

 

[Gary]

My guess is that is what is going to be communicated to Adam Silver and the other owners. If Sterling is still the owner of the team come next year, they should expect the boycotting of games.
I don't see that happening as I believe that the owners will actually act quickly and decisively (in a timeframe that is appropriate to these sort of situations) to avoid harming the league to that degree.

I think they will have him out as owner fairly quickly, but then transitioning to a new owership group will probably take a lot longer since there won't be the pressure to instill a new group as there is to get rid of the existing one.
And unless Sterling can call in a lot of favors or has leverage on owners, I can't imagine him surviving a vote, especially if it's taken anytime in the near future with the emotions and sentiment that currently exist. And if he doesn't survive a vote, I don't know what sort of legal recourse he has.

It's not like the guy would want to stay on as an owner of a team without sponsors and where he cannot even attend their games. He's going to most likely sell. He might try to appeal the lifetime ban prior to selling.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Huh? You absolutely have the right to privacy as it pertains to your neighbor, mistress. If she recorded their private conversations without his knowledge, she most certainly did violate his privacy and can be sued by him under federal law.

But she didn't. He knew about it; if Stiviano is to be believed (and, again, I have no reason not to believe her), she gave him a chance to retract his statements, and he doubled down on them.

And, honestly, if your neighbor sets up on his side of the property line with a lawn chair and a parabolic microphone (or, inside his house, with the window open), what legal protections do you have from that, exactly?

 

[Glenn]

If I was her it would have been all about the $$. The guy is a dirty old man who's racist to boot. Not to mention he's not even remotely handsome and is overweight. I would question it if it WASN'T about the money for her.

But it really makes no difference because this isn't about her. This is about that despicable POS being an a-hole. He should have never been allowed to own a team with his views.

You would question my marriage also if this is the way you think. My reaction is that it is none of your business who dates/marries who and for what reason. Maybe you cleaned it all up with your final sentence. There was no need to bring her into the conversation.

 

[Hadlowe]

But she didn't.

And, honestly, if your neighbor sets up on his side of the property line with a lawn chair and a parabolic microphone, what legal protections do you have, exactly?

She alleges she didn't. You believe her, and that's fine. I tend to think she's not credible regarding anything going on in this set of circumstances, but that's my own take on it. Assuming she had permission to record, there was nothing illegal in recording the conversation. Distributing the recorded conversation was also probably not illegal, and, at best, would not ultimately result in civil liability. If she was really interested in exposing Sterling as a racist, she would have distributed the tapes immediately instead of waiting to use them as leverage in a lawsuit. People are mostly awful. C'est la vie.

Regarding recording your neighbors, Cal. civil code 1708.8 establishes civil liability for anyone who trespasses to record someone or uses any sort of enhancing device (telephoto lens, parabolic mic, etc.)

 

[Capt. Factorial]

for those interested, RealGM has released an excerpt from the NBA's Constitution and By-Laws, which were made available to the media by the league (silver is really making good on his promise of transparency since he took over as commish):

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/233171/NBA-Constitution-Excerpt-On-Termination-Of-Ownership

Apparently the whole thing is up on NBA.com: Link

But looking through this, I think Silver might have made a mistake. Let me walk through this.

Under all of the provisions which would allow for an owner to be terminated (Article 13) the only provision that applies to Sterling in this case is:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

Well, what provision of the Constitution and By-Laws did Sterling violate? I can only find one, from Article 35A, that would seem to apply (my bold):

(c) Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 to be imposed by the Commissioner. The Member whose Owner, Officer, Manager, Coach or other employee has been so fined shall pay the amount of the fine should such person fail to do so within ten (10) days of its imposition.

So under the terms of the NBA Constitution, if Sterling were to have violated 35A(c), he would only be subject to a $1M fine. But Sterling was given a $2.5M fine. How does that work out? Check out Article 24:

(l) The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

That's where the $2.5M value comes from. But note that if a penalty is specifically fixed (as the penalty in 35A(c)) the Commissioner does not have the authority to change that penalty. By fining Sterling the $2.5M, he is acknowledging that Sterling's transgression "is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws". But from Article 24(l), the penalty for a situation not covered in the C&BL does not include termination of ownership. And as I noted above, any termination of Sterling's ownership via Article 13(a) would be based on willful violation of the C&BL. Silver's $2.5M fine indicates that Sterling did not violate the C&BL. So, it sure looks to me like Sterling's case before a court is pretty simple. "The Commissioner determined that I committed a transgression not covered by the C&BL and punished me accordingly. The terms of the C&BL do not include a provision for my termination on the basis of a non-covered action. QED."

Silver should have kept it to $1M. Maybe Sterling decides not to fight and agrees to sell in the face of 29 hostile owners who no longer want him in their club, but I don't think he can be terminated...

 

[Hoovtrain]

But she didn't. He knew about it; if Stiviano is to be believed (and, again, I have no reason not to believe her), she gave him a chance to retract his statements, and he doubled down on them.

And, honestly, if your neighbor sets up on his side of the property line with a lawn chair and a parabolic microphone (or, inside his house, with the window open), what legal protections do you have from that, exactly?

Yes, but you referenced not having the right to privacy in regards to neighbors, mistresses etc. That is the point i was disputing based on federal law. I highly doubt he made those comments while knowingly being recorded, but i digress. So my neighbor is recording me without my consent? I believe that would fall under the Wiretap Act. Now if i am speaking loudly and broadcasting my business loudly, then it's my own fault and and i don't have a leg to stand on. If he is using listening devices to pick up private conversations while i am in my home, that is a whole other matter.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

She alleges she didn't.

Has anyone qualified to speak on the subject claimed otherwise?

You believe her, and that's fine. I tend to think she's not credible regarding anything going on in this set of circumstances, but that's my own take on it.

Based on what? What calls her credibility into question, in your opinion?

Regarding recording your neighbors, Cal. civil code 1708.8 establishes civil liability for anyone who trespasses to record someone or uses any sort of enhancing device (telephoto lens, parabolic mic, etc.)

That brings to mind two questions:

1. What is the definition of "trespassing," for the purposes of this civil code? If I'm sitting on my property, or in my house, am I "trespassing" if I listen to you?
2. As I am not a resident of California, do you have any reason in particular to believe that this civil code, or one like it, is common in the other forty-nine states?

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Apparently the whole thing is up on NBA.com: Link

But looking through this, I think Silver might have made a mistake. Let me walk through this.

Under all of the provisions which would allow for an owner to be terminated (Article 13) the only provision that applies to Sterling in this case is:



Well, what provision of the Constitution and By-Laws did Sterling violate? I can only find one, from Article 35A, that would seem to apply (my bold):



So under the terms of the NBA Constitution, if Sterling were to have violated 35A(c), he would only be subject to a $1M fine. But Sterling was given a $2.5M fine. How does that work out? Check out Article 24:



That's where the $2.5M value comes from. But note that if a penalty is specifically fixed (as the penalty in 35A(c)) the Commissioner does not have the authority to change that penalty. By fining Sterling the $2.5M, he is acknowledging that Sterling's transgression "is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws". But from Article 24(l), the penalty for a situation not covered in the C&BL does not include termination of ownership. And as I noted above, any termination of Sterling's ownership via Article 13(a) would be based on willful violation of the C&BL. Silver's $2.5M fine indicates that Sterling did not violate the C&BL. So, it sure looks to me like Sterling's case before a court is pretty simple. "The Commissioner determined that I committed a transgression not covered by the C&BL and punished me accordingly. The terms of the C&BL do not include a provision for my termination on the basis of a non-covered action. QED."

Silver should have kept it to $1M. Maybe Sterling decides not to fight and agrees to sell in the face of 29 hostile owners who no longer want him in their club, but I don't think he can be terminated...

What about Article 13, Item (d)?

(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.

I'm no lawyer, but "contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party" seems pretty broad to me, as does "in such a way"...that's the kind of non-specific language that my company (an engineering firm) tries to avoid if at all possible before signing a contract, because it can be used to apply to almost anything. And the whole thing obviously affected the Association adversely.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yes, but you referenced not having the right to privacy in regards to neighbors, mistresses etc. That is the point i was disputing based on federal law.

The federal law protects you from the government.

I highly doubt he made those comments while knowingly being recorded, but i digress. So my neighbor is recording me without my consent? I believe that would fall under the Wiretap Act.

Maybe where you are; Georgia, where I live, is a "one party consent" state. So is Virginia, which is where I lived until a few years ago.

 

[Hoovtrain]

The federal law protects you from the government.

Maybe where you are; Georgia, where I live, is a "one party consent" state. So is Virginia, which is where I lived until a few years ago.

The federal law is also what limits people ability people's ability to record a private conversation without the other persons consent and what exposes those who do so to criminal prosecution. So i disagree that the federal law only protects you from the government.
Edit: ha, i realized what i originally posted (and then deleted) was actually regarding one party consent and not what i had originally tried to paste pertaining to federal law and all consent ( CA is an all consent state.) Doh!

 

[VF21]

Excellent article if you're looking for a summary of the other teams' response to Silver's action.

 

[Hadlowe]

Based on what? What calls her credibility into question, in your opinion?

Because she has every reason to lie. If she was surreptitiously recording the conversations, she would be breaking the law in California. She could be telling the truth, but I would never put her on the stand to tell that story.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The federal law is also what limits people ability people's ability to record a private conversation without the other persons consent and what exposes those who do so to criminal prosecution. So i disagree that the federal law only protects you from the government.
Edit: ha, i realized what i originally posted (and then deleted) was actually regarding one party consent. I guess it all depends on what state you are in.

Sounds like California is the exception, rather than the rule. And, even in California, if Stiviano is to be believed (and I'll say it again, I have no reason not to), Sterling's rights were not violated. No matter what you think of the morality of the situation, his rights were not infringed upon, which means that the circumstances surrounding how the comments came to light is a non-issue.

Seriously, it makes my head numb that racist comments made by a bigot, who has "hire and fire" power over people, who has the power to evict people from their homes and put them out on the street, that those comments have been brought to light, and he has been held to account for them, and there are still people who want to throw a "yeah, but" out there.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Because she has every reason to lie. If she was surreptitiously recording the conversations, she would be breaking the law in California. She could be telling the truth, but I would never put her on the stand to tell that story.

She has "every" reason to lie? Perhaps, becoming a lawyer requires you to learn to have a sort of perspective that I do not have. From my point of view, I don't see her as having any reason to lie.

 

[HndsmCelt]

BTW back on to the positive note, Mayor Johnson, and Kareem were awesome today. Nearly brought me to tears.

 

[VF21]

Here's the complete transcript (furnished by the NBA) of Adam Silver's presser:

ADAM SILVER: Shortly after the release of an audio recording this past Saturday morning of a conversation that allegedly included Clippers owner Donald Sterling, the NBA commenced an investigation, which among other things, included an interview of Mr. Sterling.

That investigation is now complete. The central findings of the investigation are that the man whose voice is heard on the recording and on a second recording from the same conversation that was released on Sunday is Mr. Sterling and that the hateful opinions voiced by that man are those of Mr. Sterling.

The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful; that they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage.

Sentiments of this kind are contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multicultural and multiethnic league.

I am personally distraught that the views expressed by Mr. Sterling came from within an institution that has historically taken such a leadership role in matters of race relations and caused current and former players, coaches, fans and partners of the NBA to question their very association with the league.

To them, and pioneers of the game like Earl Lloyd, Chuck Cooper, Sweetwater Clifton, the great Bill Russell, and particularly Magic Johnson, I apologize. Accordingly, effective immediately, I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers organization or the NBA. Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices. He may not be present at any Clippers facility, and he may not participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team.

He will also be barred from attending NBA Board of Governors meetings or participating in any other league activity.

I am also fining Mr. Sterling $2.5 million, the maximum amount allowed under the NBA constitution. These funds will be donated to organizations dedicated to anti-discrimination and tolerance efforts that will be jointly selected by the NBA and its Players Association.

As for Mr. Sterling's ownership interest in the Clippers, I will urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team and will do everything in my power to ensure that that happens. This has been a painful moment for all members of the NBA family. I appreciate the support and understanding of our players during this process, and I am particularly grateful for the leadership shown by coach Doc Rivers, union President Chris Paul and Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento, who has been acting as the players' representative in this matter.

We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling's views. They simply have no place in the NBA.

Thank you, and I'll take any questions.

Question: Do you or any of your emissaries have any clue as to whether Mr. Sterling will acquiesce to your wishes to sell the team, or do you expect a fight?

ADAM SILVER: I have no idea.

Q: From polling the owners that you've spoken to, what support do you think you have to force Mr. Sterling to sell the team?

ADAM SILVER: I didn't poll the owners. I spoke to several owners, and I have their full support.

Q: What kind of authority do they have to force a sale?

ADAM SILVER: The owners have the authority subject to three-quarters vote of the ownership group, of the partners, to remove him as an owner.

Q: The word you used specifically was outrage. You said that you were personally outraged, yet many people believe that they are outraged that for years people have known that this man is a racist slumlord and the NBA hasn't done anything until today. Can you please answer why.

ADAM SILVER: I can't speak to past actions other than to say that when specific evidence was brought to the NBA, we acted.

Q: Should someone lose their team for remarks shared in private as this is a slippery slope?

ADAM SILVER: Whether or not these remarks were initially shared in private, they are now public, and they represent his views.

Q: What was the process to coming to this decision over the last couple days, and when did you decide that this was the appropriate action to take?

ADAM SILVER: I ultimately decided this morning that this was the appropriate action, and the process beginning Saturday morning when this tape was first released was to appoint an investigator. It was David Anders from the Wachtell Lipton firm. He conducted a series of interviews, some by phone, some in person. He concluded his investigation late last night.

Q: Adam, you said you would encourage owners to force the sale of the Clippers. When will that action take place?

ADAM SILVER: The process will begin immediately. We will most likely use a standing committee of the NBA. The equivalent of our executive committee is our advisory finance committee. I've had several discussions with Glen Taylor, who is our chairman of the board and also the leader of the advisory finance committee, and we will begin that process immediately.

Q: In your conversations with Sterling, did he own up to this immediately? Was it only after you guys had come up with some sort of proof? And what, if anything, has he expressed approaching remorse, regret, anything? What's his sentiment at this point?

ADAM SILVER: Mr. Sterling acknowledged it was his voice on the tape, and he has not expressed to me directly any other views.

Q: What message do you have for the Clippers and their fans and their fan base in terms of moving forward from this point on?

ADAM SILVER: My message to the Clippers fans is this league is far bigger than any one owner, any one coach, any one player. This institution has been around for a long time, and it will stand for a long time, and I have complete confidence in Doc Rivers, in the basketball management of that club, and the players deserve their support. They've just been through an incredibly difficult incident in their lives.

Q: Was the punishment designed in effect to get the message across to Mr. Sterling that there's no point in him, there's no advantage, nothing to be gained from him continuing his ownership? And also in determining what the punishment would be, including the suggestion to the Board of Governors, did you take into account Mr. Sterling's past behavior, or was it just based on this one particular incident?

ADAM SILVER: In meting out this punishment we did not take into account his past behavior. When the board ultimately considers his overall fitness to be an owner in the NBA, they will take into account a lifetime of behavior.

Q: Adam, could you just explain or lay out for us what specific power in the constitution and bylaws you exercised with your ban, and what specific, was it a broad violation or a specific violation, and with respect to the forced sale, what specific section of the constitution covers that, and is that a broad violation or a specific one?

ADAM SILVER: I'll let the lawyers lay out for you the specific provisions of our constitution. Let's just leave it that we have the authority to act as I've recommended.

Q: Is the NBA considering more African-American ownership at this point?

ADAM SILVER: We're always open to ownership from people of all races, nationalities, ethnicities. As you know we have an African-American primary owner in the league right now. Shaquille O'Neal just became a small owner of the Sacramento Kings. David Robinson is an owner of the San Antonio Spurs. Vivek Ranadive, a person of color born in Mumbai, India, just became the primary owner of the Sacramento Kings. So I believe we have a very diverse league, but I'd always like to see it become more diverse.

Q: What about Magic Johnson? Is that an option at this point?

ADAM SILVER: Magic Johnson knows he's always welcome as an owner in this league. He's been a part owner in the past of the Los Angeles Lakers, and he's always welcome and a close friend of the NBA family.

Q: Did you talk to any of the players before you came to this decision? And what about Clippers' players; If they do not want to play for a team owned by Donald Sterling anymore, do they have any recourse?

ADAM SILVER: I talked to several players before rendering my decision. Coincidentally I'd had a trip planned for this weekend. I was in Memphis for a game. I was in Oakland, and then I was in Portland Sunday night for games. I had a chance to talk directly to Chris Paul. I spoke to other members of the team. I spoke extensively to Doc Rivers, and as I said, Kevin Johnson has been representing the players' interests, and he and I have been talking multiple times a day.

So I believe the players will be satisfied with the decision and the renderings that we've made today. If a player in the future doesn't want to play for the Los Angeles Clippers and he's under contract, we'll deal with that when it happens. But that's not my sense of where we are right now.

Q: Will this situation cause you moving forward to put new rules in place for owners from the NBA?

ADAM SILVER: I'm not sure. I mean, we're always willing to take a fresh look at our rules, our constitution and bylaws, but I believe we have appropriate rules in place right now to cover a situation like this.

Q: Just to be clear, you said when specific evidence was brought to the league you did act. In past cases, has Donald Sterling ever been fined or suspended for racial or offensive remarks, and if not, why not?

ADAM SILVER: He's never been suspended or fined by the league because while there have been well-documented rumors and cases filed, he was sued and the plaintiff lost the lawsuit. That was Elgin Baylor. There was a case brought by the Department of Justice in which ultimately Donald Sterling settled and there was no finding of guilt, and those are the only cases that have been brought to our attention. When those two litigations were brought, they were followed closely by the league office.

Q: Just a follow to that, one of the greatest players of all time, Elgin Baylor, accused Donald Sterling of running a plantation-style franchise. Did that not concern you, and why was that not investigated? Despite the fact he lost the case, he has a prominent standing in the league and he said some very serious things.

ADAM SILVER: It concerned us greatly. We followed the litigation closely, and ultimately Elgin Baylor did not prevail in that litigation.

Q: Obviously CarMax and State Farm withdrew their sponsorship with the LA Clippers. With you as the commissioner of the NBA, what would you tell other people who are maybe on the fence or who have withdrawn who in the future might want to invest in one of your franchises?

ADAM SILVER: I would say those marketing partners of the Clippers and partners of the entire NBA should judge us by our response to this incident, and I think we've responded appropriately, and I would be hopeful that they would return into their business relationships with the Clippers.

Q: I'm wondering if you've spoken to Mr. Sterling about this ban or any of his representatives, and if so, what has Mr. Sterling's reaction been to the punishment?

ADAM SILVER: I did not speak directly to his representatives about this ban. They were informed shortly before this press conference. I did not hear precisely what their reaction was.

Q: Have there been any decisions about whether the immediate members of Mr. Sterling's family, including Rochelle, will be allowed to remain in an ownership or managerial position in the league, as well?

ADAM SILVER: No, there have been no decisions about other members of the Sterling family, and I should say that this ruling applies specifically to Donald Sterling and Donald Sterling's conduct only.

Q: As you mentioned, over a dozen sponsors have dropped the Clippers. What has been the financial impact on this franchise and on the league from this scandal?

ADAM SILVER: I don't know. This has all happened in three days, and so I'm hopeful that there will be no long term damage to the league and to the Clippers' organization. But as I said earlier, I'm outraged, so I certainly understand other people's outrage, and it will take some time, this will take some time, and appropriate healing will be necessary. I can understand precisely why, whether they be people affiliated with the NBA or the Clippers for a long time or those corporate partners. I can understand how upset they are, and I'll do my best to bring them back into the NBA family.

Q: If the owners vote three fourths vote not to force the sale, can you still under your powers institute the lifetime ban?

ADAM SILVER: The lifetime ban has been instituted. That is independent of forcing a sale of the team.

Q: Can you share with us what your initial reaction was when you first heard the voice on the tape and what it was espousing?

ADAM SILVER: When I first heard it, I was shocked. I was hoping somehow that it was fraudulent or that it had been doctored, that possibly it wasn't indeed Donald Sterling. I've known Donald for over 20 years, so I suspected it was his voice, and we set about immediately investigating, and that was my reaction, to sort of bear down and say let's get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible.

Q: Mayor Johnson has indicated he would like the league to undertake a full accounting of Donald Sterling's past and the failures by the NBA to act until now. Is that an account you'd be willing to undertake? And would you make any effort to mete out the personal views of other NBA owners at this point?

ADAM SILVER: I've had, as I said earlier, multiple conversations with Kevin Johnson, and I'm hoping that the actions we take today will satisfy our players. I believe they should.

Q: Can you just tell us, you said you've known Donald Sterling for 20 years. What have your interactions over those 20 years been like with him? Have you ever seen anything like this? Have you ever felt anything like this? And what kind of man did you judge him to be prior to this?

ADAM SILVER: I have not been that close to him over the years, but there's nothing I've ever seen in his behavior that would evidence these kinds of views. I've certainly, again, because there have been a lot of public filings about his activities, I've been aware of those accusations, but there's nothing I've ever seen firsthand that would indicate that he held the views that were expressed on these audio recordings.

Q: I'm curious, you spoke about your personal response to this. In terms of Donald Sterling self-identifying as Jewish and you doing the same, as well, I'm wondering whether there was a specific kind of pain associated with that for you and if you felt a certain responsibility within the Jewish community to be responding to this in this way?

ADAM SILVER: I think my response was as a human being, and I used the word distraught before. I spoke on Saturday morning directly to Chris Paul, to Doc Rivers, and it wasn't even anger at that point. I mean, there was a certain somberness, and frankly, I felt sort of most strongly and personally for that team. While this affects every player and anyone associated with the NBA family, for those players and those coaches to go out and do what they need to do and play at the highest level in the world and have them hanging over this I think caused me to have a certain sadness I would say about the entire situation. I think this is regardless of anyone's religion, ethnicity, nationality. I think this is incredibly hurtful.

Q: At any time during your conversation with Mr. Sterling, did he express any remorse or denial regarding these comments?

ADAM SILVER: Mr. Sterling has not expressed those views directly to me.

Q: It's been suggested that the Clipper players be granted free agency at the end of this year as a result of this issue. Is that something that can be considered?

ADAM SILVER: That is not something we are considering.

Q: If you don't get the three-quarter vote that you need, is it possible that Donald Sterling could still be an absentee owner profiting from this team even though physically he's banned from doing anything with it?

ADAM SILVER: I fully expect to get the support I need from the other NBA owners to remove him.

 

[Hoovtrain]

Sounds like California is the exception, rather than the rule. And, even in California, if Stiviano is to be believed (and I'll say it again, I have no reason not to), Sterling's rights were not violated. No matter what you think of the morality of the situation, his rights were not infringed upon, which means that the circumstances surrounding how the comments came to light is a non-issue.

Seriously, it makes my head numb that racist comments made by a bigot, who has "hire and fire" power over people, who has the power to evict people from their homes and put them out on the street, that those comments have been brought to light, and he has been held to account for them, and there are still people who want to throw a "yeah, but" out there.

First off i am not throwing "yeah, but" out there. You made a comment about federal law and privacy rights that were not 100% accurate and that is what i disputed. And again, his rights were infringed on in CA if she recorded the conversation without his consent. Maybe this is also not that big of a surprise to me because for as long as i can remember, Sterling has always had the reputation as a bigot. Everyone seems so shocked, this really just seems par for the course with this guy.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

I get that whether or not the recording was illegal is an interesting legal question, but does it really matter?

Let's say that she gets sued. How much can she be sued for, realistically? And how likely is it that her damages get paid by some combination of the NBA, the Clippers players, David Stern, and all the other owners who are happy to see that guy cackling off into the sunset?

 

[Glenn]

If the recording was made without both party's consent, what is the penalty? Unless it is prison time, I'll take up a collection.




Ha! ninjabiscuit beats me to it.

 

[VF21]

First off i am not throwing "yeah, but" out there. You made a comment about federal law and privacy rights that were not 100% accurate and that is what i disputed. Maybe this is also not that big of a surprise to me because for as long as i can remember, Sterling has always had the reputation as a bigot. Everyone seems so shocked, this really just seems par for the course with this guy.

Most of us on KF are to-the-bone basketball fans. I think we tend to either overlook or forget that a lot of casual basketball fans don't follow the news of other teams, team owners, etc. While it might have been pretty common knowledge that Sterling was a cheapskate scumbag, I think a lot of people were shocked to find out he was a racist, bigot cheapskate scumbag. While actions generally speak louder than words, I think actually hearing the unmistakeable language of true racism from Sterling's own lips was a shock for a lot of basketball fans who perhaps hadn't known of the previous actions.

Bottom line for me is that Sterling has been exposed for what he truly is - and at the least what he truly is is someone who should not be in partnership with 29 other owners as part of the National Basketball Association. I don't mean this as an exact analogy but it would be somewhat akin to allowing Michael Vick to be on the board of directors of the SPCA.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

First off i am not throwing "yeah, but" out there. You made a comment about federal law and privacy rights that were not 100% accurate and that is what i disputed.

I wasn't singling you out with the "yeah, but". I quoted you because other people responded before I finished typing, so that it would be clear whom I was addressing about the law you cited, and subsequently edited out.

And again, his rights were infringed on in CA if she recorded the conversation without his consent.

"If" being the operative term; I have no earthly idea why you seem disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of her, but that's your prerogative. Everything I have seen on the situation indicates that the conversation was recorded with his consent. She has claimed this to be true and he, TTBOMK, has not refuted her claim. Until I hear something to the contrary, I will continue to maintain that this is not a rights issue.

 

[andjel]

While I applaud tough actions by Sterling, in ideal world that is not the just solution.

In such world they would leave LA Clippers to whatever-is-his-name, with all the guaranteed contracts and obligations it has, and with all revenues that he is losing and mutiny within his team, and step aside.
To bad that in real world, couple of months later it would be as if nothing occurred and public/media would chase another squirrel.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

What about Article 13, Item (d)?

I'm no lawyer, but "contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party" seems pretty broad to me, as does "in such a way"...that's the kind of non-specific language that my company (an engineering firm) tries to avoid if at all possible before signing a contract, because it can be used to apply to almost anything. And the whole thing obviously affected the Association adversely.

I don't know if it's as broad as you want it to be...does he really have a contractual obligation not to make racist comments to his girlfriend over the phone? I don't see that standing up in court.

Besides, the point I'm making is that by fining Sterling $2.5M, Silver has tacitly admitted that Sterling's conduct falls under Article 24(l) which regards conduct not covered by the Constitution and By-Laws, and does not prescribe the possibility of termination of ownership. That would seem to preclude applying Article 13(d) (just as I suggested it precluded applying Article 13(a) via Article 35A(c) - the "best interests of the league" clause).

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

While I applaud tough actions by Sterling, in ideal world that is not the just solution.

In such world they would leave LA Clippers to whatever-is-his-name, with all the guaranteed contracts and obligations it has, and with all revenues that he is losing and mutiny within his team, and step aside.
To bad that in real world, couple of months later it would be as if nothing occurred and public/media would chase another squirrel.

There doesn't appear to be a sentence in this post which makes sense. I don't know what it was you meant to say, but it doesn't appear as though it came through.

 

[Hoovtrain]

I wasn't singling you out with the "yeah, but". I quoted you because other people responded before I finished typing, so that it would be clear whom I was addressing about the law you cited, and subsequently edited out.

"If" being the operative term; I have no earthly idea why you seem disposed to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of her, but that's your prerogative. Everything I have seen on the situation indicates that the conversation was recorded with his consent. She has claimed this to be true and he, TTBOMK, has not refuted her claim. Until I hear something to the contrary, I will continue to maintain that this is not a rights issue.

Not giving him the benefit of the doubt at all. He is a bigot and clearly said what he said. I just find it hard to believe he would allow himself to be recorded saying such things by his mistress.

 

[rainmaker]

It's not like the guy would want to stay on as an owner of a team without sponsors and where he cannot even attend their games. He's going to most likely sell. He might try to appeal the lifetime ban prior to selling.

Generally, yes, but this is Sterling we're talking about here. He doesn't think like most.

He had no problem running that franchise into the ground for years before CP3 fell in his lap.

 

[swisshh]

While I applaud tough actions by Sterling, in ideal world that is not the just solution.

In such world they would leave LA Clippers to whatever-is-his-name, with all the guaranteed contracts and obligations it has, and with all revenues that he is losing and mutiny within his team, and step aside.
To bad that in real world, couple of months later it would be as if nothing occurred and public/media would chase another squirrel.

That would also punish the players who are trying to win a playoff series. Also, the NBA would risk lost sponsorships, network backlash and various other issues leading to a loss of revenue. Any decision like this has to do with the bottom line and not just the moral right.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Not giving him the benefit of the doubt at all. He is a bigot and clearly said what he said. I just find it hard to believe he would allow himself to be recorded saying such things by his mistress.

Why? We're talking about a racist who owns a basketball team, with a half-black mistress. Why is that so hard to believe"?