the suspensions sucked! they were unexplained and lacking evidence. skew my words any way you want. i think david stern should have addressed the public more concisely. i was left unhappy with his press confrence. many of his answers were questionable and cut of broadcast because of biased networking. i just heard a sportsman say artest was the village idiot on nbc. but that just goes to show how biased messages get out onto the public without people even knowing it. we are so accustomed to believe everything we watch that we think not to question the hard facts that contradict their claims. just ask yourself or even yourself in a workplace or school yard, if someone assulted you personally with anything (even merely tossing a beer) at you, how differently would you have acted? even playing in the nba where your every move is taped, how does that justify jerks that harrash you day in and out. i don't think the suspensions were to change the future. i think money had to with it. people are mad and want compensation for the players' actions. so my theory goes- if protection is what david stern was aiming for when he suspended the players that he did, then protection for the players isn't accounted for. protection meaning protecting the league from suits, protecting the league from bad reputation, and protecting the league from insurance increases. and for the players, i think they need more protection as well (from fans and from scrutiny). they are human too. but what's different is that they're always put under the microscope. if everybody from the professional world was put under the micoscope, that would disable some from doing their jobs. so if you can't sympathize (or put yourself in their situation) with these players, then judging them would be a bad thing. isn't it??