Thread: Alleged Sterling talk being probed

Originally Posted by ShaneFalco

So this is how free spech dies.....

Please...

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

You realize it takes a 75% vote from the fellow owners to get rid of an owner right? It's not like the NBA can just boot an owner at their whim. If the owners were scared of the precedent this sets, they wouldn't be voting 29-0 to kick Sterling out.

There hasn't been a vote, and that is pure speculation. Also, if it's a "private" vote, then we may never know the REAL count. I think it needs to be done in a manner that is not only private from the outside, but private INSIDE their room (like dropping a ball into a pan that no one can see which ball you dropped).. so that no LEAKS can come out as to whom voted for what.

But weazel is absolutely right. THe owners WILL be wary (as advized by their lawyers) that if they take this to court, then THEIR conversations that they may have had at some social event, some party, some private gathering...can alllllll be brought into the courtroom and used as evidence against them. Setting the precedence that private conversations can be used to kick you out, is a VERY slim road.

Then there is the bi-laws that suggest that they even have the RIGHTS to do it. As the bi-laws (as explained by the lawyers on the radio) are written to kick someone out due to their actions..... NOT their thoughts. There is nothing written that an owner can be kicked out PURELY because of his thoughts and ideas. So the NBA will have a hard time proving that they even have a right to force him to sell.

THEN, there is the anti-trust lawsuit that CAN be filed by the Clipper's owner. Conidering that the NBA owners my be violating their own agreement by voting him out. The anti-trust can show a "collusion" amongst the owners to interfere with HIS business (which in a sense is the same as the rest of theirs). Anti-trust is different in the sense that not only can the Clippers' owner win what he 'lost'..but that amount can be TRIPLED.

So yeah, I would say that the owners have a LOT more to think about than what was originally thought, and this "guess" that its going to be 29-0 could purely be stated with the AGENDA to influence the public opinion, and thus thte owners, to vote that direction.

Originally Posted by slim

No. There would have been some strong talk and a lot of shrugged shoulders.



This is a silly argument. The demographics of the league have nothing to do with it.

They have everything to do with it. The owners are made up of 95 percent white guys and the players are made up of roughly 85 percent black guys. I don't know how that doesn't factor in.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...rling-comments

AND

Nuggets president Josh Kroenke’s statement on Donald Sterling ruling

Nuggets president Josh Kroenke released this statement after the NBA commissioner, Adam Silver, announced his ruling against Clippers owner Donald Sterling on Tuesday.

“Kroenke Sports & Entertainment and the Denver Nuggets wholeheartedly and emphatically support Commissioner Adam Silver’s decision that Donald Sterling be fined and banned for life from any involvement with the National Basketball Association. Mr. Sterling’s words have absolutely no place in our working family or in a global sport that values inclusion, diversity and tolerance of people regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.”

http://blogs.denverpost.com/nuggets/...-ruling/10516/

Originally Posted by Denver Native (Carol)

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...rling-comments

AND

Nuggets president Josh Kroenke’s statement on Donald Sterling ruling



http://blogs.denverpost.com/nuggets/...-ruling/10516/

Owners have went public in support of Silver. No one made them do that, as Silver works for the owners. I don't think they will have a problem voting Sterling out.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

There hasn't been a vote, and that is pure speculation. Also, if it's a "private" vote, then we may never know the REAL count. I think it needs to be done in a manner that is not only private from the outside, but private INSIDE their room (like dropping a ball into a pan that no one can see which ball you dropped).. so that no LEAKS can come out as to whom voted for what.

But weazel is absolutely right. THe owners WILL be wary (as advized by their lawyers) that if they take this to court, then THEIR conversations that they may have had at some social event, some party, some private gathering...can alllllll be brought into the courtroom and used as evidence against them. Setting the precedence that private conversations can be used to kick you out, is a VERY slim road.

Then there is the bi-laws that suggest that they even have the RIGHTS to do it. As the bi-laws (as explained by the lawyers on the radio) are written to kick someone out due to their actions..... NOT their thoughts. There is nothing written that an owner can be kicked out PURELY because of his thoughts and ideas. So the NBA will have a hard time proving that they even have a right to force him to sell.

THEN, there is the anti-trust lawsuit that CAN be filed by the Clipper's owner. Conidering that the NBA owners my be violating their own agreement by voting him out. The anti-trust can show a "collusion" amongst the owners to interfere with HIS business (which in a sense is the same as the rest of theirs). Anti-trust is different in the sense that not only can the Clippers' owner win what he 'lost'..but that amount can be TRIPLED.

So yeah, I would say that the owners have a LOT more to think about than what was originally thought, and this "guess" that its going to be 29-0 could purely be stated with the AGENDA to influence the public opinion, and thus thte owners, to vote that direction.

Every single owner that has given a public statement is in favor of Silver's decision. Do you really think with this precedent set that Silver is going to start banning owners willy-nilly. What does he have to gain from that? I think you are being paranoid if you think this is starting some sort of slippery slope. Silver pretty much had no other option here. According to JA Adande (who has about as much NBA insider info as there is) there wouldn't have been any games last night had Silver not done what he did, because the players were all going to boycott. This was one very extreme case of an owner making some really ugly racist remarks. I don't see this as the beginning of some trend.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Every single owner that has given a public statement is in favor of Silver's decision. Do you really think with this precedent set that Silver is going to start banning owners willy-nilly. What does he have to gain from that? I think you are being paranoid if you think this is starting some sort of slippery slope. Silver pretty much had no other option here. According to JA Adande (who has about as much NBA insider info as there is) there wouldn't have been any games last night had Silver not done what he did, because the players were all going to boycott. This was one very extreme case of an owner making some really ugly racist remarks. I don't see this as the beginning of some trend.

of course every owner that has said something said they agree with it LMAO... otherwise they would be seen as a racist

Originally Posted by weazel

of course every owner that has said something said they agree with it LMAO... otherwise they would be seen as a racist

They have the option of not saying anything if they have a huge problem with this. Assuming he gets voted out, it will send a pretty loud and clear message that the owners have no problem with this. I don't think their votes are made public, so it's not like being seen as a racist will deter any owner from voting against this.

Originally Posted by Denver Native (Carol)

Owners have went public in support of Silver. No one made them do that, as Silver works for the owners. I don't think they will have a problem voting Sterling out.

You say that, but by LAW they might ahve a very serious problem voting them out.

Also, of COURSE they are saying in 'public' that they are in support. OTherwise they look like they support the wrong stance. But privately, who knows.

Lets be honest. I absolutely do NOT support Sterling's view points, but I ABSOLUTELY support the RIGHT to have whatever viewpoints they wish, and having such views should not be precedent for having your property sold.

What if we had the same perspective and objectives for everyone that said they were athiest? Should we sell their businesses? Now don't get me wrong. Silver had to PAY for his injustice in his housing prejudice, and RIGHTFULLY so. I may absolutely HATE what Sterling said, and believe him to be a complete and total douche, but that doesn't mean eveyrone that has a different perspective and is a douche should be legally bound to sell their business.

It's not as easy as you WANT it to be, and public statements are easy to make when they are supporting the "moral' sides of public opinion.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

They have the option of not saying anything if they have a huge problem with this. Assuming he gets voted out, it will send a pretty loud and clear message that the owners have no problem with this. I don't think their votes are made public, so it's not like being seen as a racist will deter any owner from voting against this.

We don't know if their votes will be or not. That hasn't been determined. The funny thing is, that if they aren't made public, then the "report" will be a 29-0 vote to the public. WHy? Because that would eliminate anyone investigating as to WHO did NOT vote to have him removed? Then there will be the probes and investigating reporters.

if it IS made public, than no owner will DARE vote no as they don't want to look like the prejudice douche.

So guess what, we will HEAR 29-0 ...No-matter-what.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Every single owner that has given a public statement is in favor of Silver's decision. Do you really think with this precedent set that Silver is going to start banning owners willy-nilly. What does he have to gain from that? I think you are being paranoid if you think this is starting some sort of slippery slope. Silver pretty much had no other option here. According to JA Adande (who has about as much NBA insider info as there is) there wouldn't have been any games last night had Silver not done what he did, because the players were all going to boycott. This was one very extreme case of an owner making some really ugly racist remarks. I don't see this as the beginning of some trend.

I'm being paranoid? No, not at all. Do you know what precedent is??? Because you don't sound like you do. It has NOTHING to do with becoming a "trend." That's completely different.

The idea that an owner can LOSE their franchise due to individual thoughts given in a PRIVATE conversation doesn't sound like a slippery slope to you? Seriously? Mark Cuban doesn't agree with you. A lot of these owners have probably had some pretty "unsettling" conversations when amongst their peers and trusted group. You think they want those conversations to be investigated and probed? Do you think they want the chance that ANY conversation they have can be used against them in a lawsuit to force selling of their franchise?? Every owner is going to look at this as to "how is it going to affect ME in the future"..and they will get advice from their lawyers that they CAN be investigated for their OWN statements that they might have had. Things will ALL onto public record.

As far as the "boycott", it would have been STUPID if there wasn't games last night. DO the players REALLY think that an owner is going to be kicked out after 24 hours of news being reported? Hell, players have been coming out all day saying that they play for their teammates, and their coaches..... NOT the owner. To say they wouldn't have played in a playoff game for a "statement" would have been a pretty BAD way of making a statement. They players are NOT going to boycott.

Originally Posted by tomjonesrocks

Please...

your kidding yourself if you think this has nothing to do with free speech. Taking away someones business because of what they say....

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I'm being paranoid? No, not at all. Do you know what precedent is??? Because you don't sound like you do. It has NOTHING to do with becoming a "trend." That's completely different.

.

Your just a conspiracy theorist like me Rav.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

They have the option of not saying anything if they have a huge problem with this.

With 20 cameras stuffed in their face? And the Race Pimps like Sharpton on the prowl?

I think not. Unless they plan on getting put on a cross and crucified.

He said it right there, "If he took action, then I'm absolutely saying action needs to be taken. But the moment we start reacting to how someone THINKS in the privacy of their own home, then that is sliding down a slippery slope."

He's a smart man that understands the bi-laws and constitutions of the owner agreement. "Trying to police "morality" can cause you some serious problems."

He also made a great point...

"how many homophobes are in this league? I don't know, but where do you draw the line? Is it ok to take action against a person that is prejudice against blacks but not against those prejudice against gays? What about anti-semitism?..."

All great points that will prove to be a VERY serious problem for the owners if this goes to court. Nothing is said that 'thoughts' can be used for reason to have your franchise taken away.

The point about making someone sell their house because you don't agree with their views or because you don't like them. Mark makes a lot of really good points in this media ambush.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

As far as the "boycott", it would have been STUPID if there wasn't games last night. DO the players REALLY think that an owner is going to be kicked out after 24 hours of news being reported? Hell, players have been coming out all day saying that they play for their teammates, and their coaches..... NOT the owner. To say they wouldn't have played in a playoff game for a "statement" would have been a pretty BAD way of making a statement. They players are NOT going to boycott.

Are you saying JA Adande had bad info?

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I'm being paranoid? No, not at all. Do you know what precedent is??? Because you don't sound like you do. It has NOTHING to do with becoming a "trend." That's completely different.

The idea that an owner can LOSE their franchise due to individual thoughts given in a PRIVATE conversation doesn't sound like a slippery slope to you? Seriously? Mark Cuban doesn't agree with you. A lot of these owners have probably had some pretty "unsettling" conversations when amongst their peers and trusted group. You think they want those conversations to be investigated and probed? Do you think they want the chance that ANY conversation they have can be used against them in a lawsuit to force selling of their franchise?? Every owner is going to look at this as to "how is it going to affect ME in the future"..and they will get advice from their lawyers that they CAN be investigated for their OWN statements that they might have had. Things will ALL onto public record.

As far as the "boycott", it would have been STUPID if there wasn't games last night. DO the players REALLY think that an owner is going to be kicked out after 24 hours of news being reported? Hell, players have been coming out all day saying that they play for their teammates, and their coaches..... NOT the owner. To say they wouldn't have played in a playoff game for a "statement" would have been a pretty BAD way of making a statement. They players are NOT going to boycott.

When you are a public figure, especially a billionaire sports owner, you have to expect that everything you say/do is potentially being recorded. If you don't want your private racist thoughts being made public, then don't say them out loud. There is no place in the NBA (a league that is 85% black) for someone with those views.

You act like he is being punished for having a certain opinion. That's not the case. He's being punished for making hateful remarks that stained the league's reputation and caused sponsors to run like wildfire and players to potentially boycott.