Should Artest Be Allowed to Play?

[Purple Reign]

I'm confused.

Based on the Kings Organization statement, it seems to me that this is a "team imposed" leave of absence. Not a suspension, and definately not a termination. Here is what Petrie says......"It's a very serious charge," said Petrie, "and certainly something that we're very concerned with on a lot of fronts. "I think we made a decision that gives some time ... gives everyone a little breathing room here to make a further assessment. There are a lot of different aspects to this and I don't think it's good to speculate right now."

We can all assume that Artest will not play on tonight. But what if Ron approaches Petrie between now and Thursday and says he is ready to go. Not only does he want to play, but he needs to play.

Should the Kings allow a player to play ball if he wants to, if he is under investigation? In this case, do the Kings have an obligation to allow Ron Artest to play if he wants to play?

 

[SLAB]

Innocent until proven guilty.

If Ron approaches Petrie and the rest of the guys and says he can play, there should not be anything they could do to stop him.

On the other hand, he needs time off to work through this.

I say no, because he needs all the time he can get to hopefully smooth things out with his family and his bosses.

 

[Gary]

Absolutely no.. Basketball should be the last thing this guy thinks of. I don't think the Kings shoul let him back until this is over and then they should (let him go/let him stay) based on what the judge says.

 

[Vlade4GM]

it would probably be too much of a distraction to the team.

 

[Spike]

Management is doing the right thing. It's enough of a distraction with him not playing...imagine what it would be if he was playing.

 

[Miles and Miles]

I say no. He needs to work this out first. That and if something does happen on the court he is going to snap.

 

[bibbinator]

The Kings have done the right thing.

If Ron truly has done something awful then they've separated themselves. If he hasn't the team can take him back and help him clear his name. The thing you really don't want to happen, from the team's perspective, is to let him play and then have it come out that he had commited awful crimes.

 

[tyrant]

i voted yes, but my heart said no. this is a big personal problem.

 

[Cal-Kings]

I voted yes because he's not "guilty" yet.

I like the "excused" for some games until it gets sorted out better, but how many games? I don't know.

Of course, if he's guilty... then I'd like to know how many games Jason Kidd was suspended.

 

[Merdiesel]

KCRA last night made me sick, they have no class. Even if Artest did something, shouldn't people be trying to help him instead of make him look like a piece of ****. In this Country your guilty until proven innocent. Even if nothing at all happened, people will always look at him different. What a shame.

IMO...
Artest is one of the greatest defenders in the game. Your damn right he should be able to play!

 

[bibbinator]

Ron Artest is crazy/dangerous/thug is an easy story to write. No surprise what the news will do with it.

IMO, it's more important to seriously punish famous people for doing wrong than nobodies: it sets an example. Nowadays it seems that only chumps get punished.

 

[Jechtsphere]

Nope he shouldn't play, if he put hands on that woman like they say he did he doesn't deserve to be part of the team until it's all sorted out.

 

[kennadog]

I voted yes because he's not "guilty" yet.

I like the "excused" for some games until it gets sorted out better, but how many games? I don't know.

Of course, if he's guilty... then I'd like to know how many games Jason Kidd was suspended.

An employer doesn't have to base decisions on whether an employee is guilty of a crime or not. The Maloofs may very well stick by Ron until the case is ajudicated and allow him to play long sooner rather than later. But as an employer they have a right to make personnel decisions based on what's good for their business, their other employees and their customers.

If an employee's personal issues begin to affect all those things, then an employer has the right to make decisions based on that, not just legal guilt or innocence. This isn't the first negative incident for Ron in Sacramento. Being able to work at any particular job is a priviledge granted by the employer, not an absolute right.

 

[kyo2002]

Basketball is basketball, personal life is personal life. If anything he needs basketball as an outlet like Odom, Larry Hughes, especially Kidd, etc. or Kobe before he dropped 81. But Artest has gotten into some fights and a riot on court so it's questionable to let him play. The organization should stand by him though. He's still innocent. I'd say allow him to play if only he wouldn't implode. It's a trust and team issue the management has to have with him. Saying no will have a negative impact on the relation I'm sure.

 

[bball]

This guy should be constantly in a mental institution and only allowed to the law court.
Typical imbecille

 

[Jerryaki]

voted no. not because i think he's guilty or innocent, but because even if he could play, his focus may be on other things, and the team's focus as well.

better to have him take the break and get his affairs in order.

 

[Cal-Kings]

An employer doesn't have to base decisions on whether an employee is guilty of a crime or not. The Maloofs may very well stick by Ron until the case is ajudicated and allow him to play long sooner rather than later. But as an employer they have a right to make personnel decisions based on what's good for their business, their other employees and their customers.

If an employee's personal issues begin to affect all those things, then an employer has the right to make decisions based on that, not just legal guilt or innocence. This isn't the first negative incident for Ron in Sacramento. Being able to work at any particular job is a priviledge granted by the employer, not an absolute right.

I didn't mention what "an employer" can do or can't do.

This is just my personal opinion which was the question asked. If he's "not guilty" then I say let him play. In the meantime, I don't have a problem with a "time out".

 

[kennadog]

I didn't mention what "an employer" can do or can't do.

This is just my personal opinion which was the question asked. If he's "not guilty" then I say let him play. In the meantime, I don't have a problem with a "time out".

No problem. I'm just saying that isn't necessarily the only basis for a decision about whether to let him play. Personally, I think the "timeout" is a good thing for all parties.

 

[fnordius]

I voted "yes," but don't know whether that means I disagree with his paid leave or not: if he accepted it voluntarily, or even asked for it, then it's just taking some personal time off, as players do all the time. If he had no choice in the matter, then Muss should also have been suspended for the 3+ months (21 Oct - 25 Jan) it took for him to get his day in court. But it doesn't make much sense to punish people for crimes which they haven't been convicted of, does it? Some people might deny guilt for things that they would ultimately be convicted for, and others might admit to more than they'd be found guilty of, so we can't go by what they say. Conviction in court is the only uniform standard, it follows the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," and there don't seem to be any circumstances which compel doing differently, i.e. it's not as if team members have said that they felt threatened by Ron's presence because he got into a fight with his wife.

Anyway, that's my stance. NBA justice, like all justice, should try to treat everyone the same. If they want to make a rule which automatically suspends people any time they're arrested for certain things, or something like that, fine. But there shouldn't be a special, made up on the spot, "Ron Artest Rule." So hopefully this leave from the team is something that he wanted, and will use to resolve the most pressing issues in his personal life.

 

[hearns]

He should be. Why not? Kobe played at a high level in a worse situation. His problems off the court without relation with the team are problems OFF the court.

 

[Wuster]

No.

 

[Purple Reign]

Nope he shouldn't play, if he put hands on that woman like they say he did he doesn't deserve to be part of the team until it's all sorted out.

How did he put his hands on the woman? Do we know?

Like Channel 3 and Sacramento Bee is this bastion of truth and accuracy. I do not take the media at face value for nothing. NOT A DOG GONE THING. Opinions "should" be based in the facts, and we ain't got the facts yet. And until we get the facts, Ron should be allowed to play if he feels he can play.

Someone said that the Maloofs have the right to run their business and I completely agree. But they made their bed with this guy, and if they are trying to come across that we are "suspending Artest with pay" to send a message to the public. That is bullcrap. I hope this was that Artest requested time. Other than that, I believe this veiled suspension is not sincere at all.

 

[vfettke]

this post asks if he should be ALLOWED to play. its not asking if he should play. he probably shouldn't play, but that should be his choice to make

was Muss allowed to coach after his arrest?

 

[Jechtsphere]

There will always be apologists, she said he pushed her to the ground that is putting hands on her, I don't see why she would call the police for no reason but to get Ron in trouble, if there was no crime there wouldn't be a problem, he also attempted to stop her from calling the police, the facts are he is in trouble and shouldn't play, I know people want to win and get to the playoffs but come on.

"It resulted in some pushing," Scott said of the argument. "Mr. Artest had shoved the victim to the floor several times, then he attempted to leave."

There is no reason whatsoever to put hands on a woman, some people may disagree though.

I don't see why he should play, I guess it doesn't matter what he or anyone does, as long as he's a King he can do no wrong.

There is nothing to defend.

 

[ezekielbear]

This is the 8th time the police have been called, between Sac and Indy, and BOTH have been the caller to 911 before.

Fact is, they're both wrong.

They're both weird.

And obviously, right or wrong, this is how they handle things.

And while it's very wrong of him to push her, it's also just as wrong for her to throw a frying pan at him while in a moving car.

She's as guilty as he. Two wrongs, don't make a right.

And yes, he should be allowed to play. Unless he's already guilty...which I believe happens in the court of law.

 

[Warhawk]

There is no reason whatsoever to put hands on a woman, some people may disagree though.

Unless it is self-defense.

Again, we do not have the details, so it's really hard to come to some kind of meaningful conclusion at this point.

 

[BMiller52]

Management is doing the right thing. It's enough of a distraction with him not playing...imagine what it would be if he was playing.

Exactly. Not to mention the fact that he'll make it even worse for the team on the road and I'm not sure the fans will like him too much at home games...

 

[Bricklayer]

This thread kind of answers its own question. No, he shouldn;t be out there until this is at least clarified.

difference with the Kobe thing was it happened over the summer. Would have been odd indeed if it had happened during the season and Kobe had played for the Lakers the night after he was charged with rape. As it was, it was clear by the time the season rolled around what was going on, what the charges were, etc. And it was stil a major distraction. (Rape being a greater charge obviously, but same principle).