OT: Sterling gets a lifetime ban from NBA

[Goose85]

Wow, the new Commish gives Donald Sterling a lifetime ban.
I was expecting a harsh penalty, like a one year or indefinite ban, while the Commish tried to get the other owners to help in trying to force the sale of the team.

So is this zero tolerance just an owner rule now, or a player rule too?
If a player makes a remark about another ethnicity or sexual orientation, what will the ban be? Careful with that trash talking guys.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10857580/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba

[Markedman]

Wow, the new Commish gives Donald Sterling a lifetime ban.
I was expecting a harsh penalty, like a one year or indefinite ban, while the Commish tried to get the other owners to help in trying to force the sale of the team.

So is this zero tolerance just an owner rule now, or a player rule too?
If a player makes a remark about another ethnicity or sexual orientation, what will the ban be? Careful with that trash talking guys.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10857580/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba

My question exactly.....If you want to ban someone for life for words said in private it can't just be for owners....coaches and players must also be held to the same standard......I bet they won't be though

[mufan2003]

What Sterling said was despicable and deplorable...but I agree a bit with Mark Cuban who said we need to be careful, this could be a slippery slope. What if an owner in the future is caught saying something privately about homosexuals, bi-gender, a certain religion, etc. Cuban said in America you have the freedom to say things that make you an idiot, bigot, racist, etc. However, where does freedom of speech come in?

Also, how about the "gold-digging" girlfriend who likely made this private conversation public because Sterling's wife filed a lawsuit against her to return property worth millions that Donald had given to her? She is not the best example of a good human being either.

[kneelb4zerg]

What Sterling said was despicable and deplorable...but I agree a bit with Mark Cuban who said we need to be careful, this could be a slippery slope. What if an owner in the future is caught saying something privately about homosexuals, bi-gender, a certain religion, etc. Cuban said in America you have the freedom to say things that make you an idiot, bigot, racist, etc. However, where does freedom of speech come in?

Also, how about the "gold-digging" girlfriend who likely made this private conversation public because Sterling's wife filed a lawsuit against her to return property worth millions that Donald had given to her? She is not the best example of a good human being either.

It doesn't. It's a private association that can regulate itself.

[mufan2003]

It doesn't. It's a private association that can regulate itself.


I get that. However, all owners will now be paranoid regarding anything they say, publicly or privately. Really an unfortunate situation and sad that an individual would hold such views.

[TallTitan34]

You can tell your boss to go F himself but he's going to still fire you even though you had the freedom to say it.

[Goose85]

What Sterling said was despicable and deplorable...but I agree a bit with Mark Cuban who said we need to be careful, this could be a slippery slope. What if an owner in the future is caught saying something privately about homosexuals, bi-gender, a certain religion, etc. Cuban said in America you have the freedom to say things that make you an idiot, bigot, racist, etc. However, where does freedom of speech come in?

Also, how about the "gold-digging" girlfriend who likely made this private conversation public because Sterling's wife filed a lawsuit against her to return property worth millions that Donald had given to her? She is not the best example of a good human being either.

I guess making an apology on twitter will no longer suffice when something stupid is said by a player. Again, Sterling needs to be punished, but I'm just wondering about the standard being set here.

[MayorBeluga]

Despicable comments? Absolutely. Over-reaction? Yup. This is nothing more than the NBA showing that it does "something" and it allows people to act morally superior by being more outraged than the next guy.

Can the NBA actualyl enforce such a ban? Most arenas are publicly owned, and it's doubtful the NBA can prohibit his entry into a publicly owned facility based on speech. That's where we get into some First Amendment issues since we're talking governemtn involvement (due to ownership).

That said, I agree with others who've pointed out that the NBA has headed down a slippery slope that necessarily means players and fans should be banned as well.

[MayorBeluga]

I guess making an apology on twitter will no longer suffice when something stupid is said by a player. Again, Sterling needs to be punished, but I'm just wondering about the standard being set here.

Does he need to be "punished"? Why?

Again, not defending his comments. But I'm not clear why someone being a jack@ss means he needs to be punished.

[Goose85]

Does he need to be "punished"? Why?

Again, not defending his comments. But I'm not clear why someone being a jack@ss means he needs to be punished.

As an owner, he does represent the Clippers organization and the league, and in making such comments he has negatively affected the association to which he is a member. The association to which he belongs felt the need to punish him for the remarks he made.

[MUMac]

Does he need to be "punished"? Why?

Again, not defending his comments. But I'm not clear why someone being a jack@ss means he needs to be punished.

Yes. Because the NBA and everyone else turned a blind eye to his behavior in the past. Now that it is in the public eye with salaciousness and nastiness, they needed to act like they are the moral authority.

I agree with some of the concerns. He is an idiot, plain and simple. The concern I have is how we as a society regulate personal beliefs. That said, Sterling is not the poster boy that I want to defend on this subject. I think I need to take a shower ...

[TulsaWarrior]

Sterling's behavior for years has been an embarrassment. Commissioner Silver is an experienced litigator and is clearly comfortable with the legal groundwork for his ruling. When Silver was asked whether what someone said in private should be held against him he said the key point was those private comments had become public. His response was like an attorney responding to a judge's question. That tells me he is prepped for any potential legal battle.

It should be interesting to see if Sterling mounts a legal challenge. Would the courts consider the internal rules that govern the league rules of a private business? (NBA) I'm not sure if a court will hear a challenge. This will set a precedent for conduct of owners, players and coaches in the league. Silver has also but the onus on the other owners to affirm his ruling.

[Markedman]

Yes. Because the NBA and everyone else turned a blind eye to his behavior in the past. Now that it is in the public eye with salaciousness and nastiness, they needed to act like they are the moral authority.

I agree with some of the concerns. He is an idiot, plain and simple. The concern I have is how we as a society regulate personal beliefs. That said, Sterling is not the poster boy that I want to defend on this subject. I think I need to take a shower ...

Also when sponsors start leaving and players are threatening to boycott playoff games you have a problem.........this is a business afterall........

Too bad Sterling could not just come to the realization that due to the comments he made he could no longer do business in the league and left on his own.......too much to ask from him though....

[MayorBeluga]

As an owner, he does represent the Clippers organization and the league, and in making such comments he has negatively affected the association to which he is a member. The association to which he belongs felt the need to punish him for the remarks he made.

But what gives the NBA the authority to "punish" him? Deadspin cited something apparently called Article 35 of the NBA Constitution (huh?) but that gives the commissioner the ability to punish a player. Is there something else that gives the NBA the authority to go after an owner? Seriously, I don't know. The NBA cannot rewrite contract law just because a racist idiot is a party to that contract.

[MUMac]

Also when sponsors start leaving and players are threatening to boycott playoff games you have a problem.........this is a business afterall........

Too bad Sterling could not just come to the realization that due to the comments he made he could no longer do business in the league and left on his own.......too much to ask from him though....

The timing of this could not have been worse for the NBA. They had a potential PR nightmare at hand. If it happened during the season, there would have been some of that, but not as much attention.

As for those that question the authority of the NBA, they do have the best interest of the league and integrity of the game concerns. He messed with both of those.

I wonder if his ex will get full ownership as a result of this. It will be interesting to watch.

As an aside, he certainly is one ugly dude. Memory issues, disgusting to look at, disgusting behavior, a boor, but a lot of money can buy you a babe like that, I guess.

[MayorBeluga]

Also when sponsors start leaving and players are threatening to boycott playoff games you have a problem.........this is a business afterall........

In other words, the same free market that makes the NBA thrive might rectify the problem. This is all about moral showboating right now. If the players or networks took a stand that cost them money, I might be more impressed.

[MayorBeluga]

As for those that question the authority of the NBA, they do have the best interest of the league and integrity of the game concerns. He messed with both of those.

From the limited things I've seen, that authority does not cover owners. It's possible it does and it's just not public. If so, why not put it out there?

[unclejohn]

Sterling has been a troublesome owner for decades. His teams have rarely been competitive, he has often been a thorn in the side of the other owners, and he put himself in a position where the league was looking for a reason to get rid of him. As some have pointed out, Silver did not do this unless he had lined up the support of at least a large number of the other owners. If some other owner got drunk at a party and said what he thought about one minority or another, would the commish have come down as hard on them? Maybe. Probably not. What many writers have been saying for a week is that David Stern should have taken action a long time ago. Silver did not waste any time and used the first opportunity.

[Gato78]

He owns a franchise in a league governed by a constitution and the voting power of the other owners. They can probably get rid of him, or anyone lese, for conduct detrimental to the League. You cannot dispute that his conduct was reprehensible. The fact that he made his comments to his mistress about her association with Magic Johnson makes it far worse than just the ramblings of an old man. 1st Amendment my ass. He is involved in a business that has rules and regulations so as to ensure that no member of the League's product is diminished in value by the conduct of others in the League. His words, if there was no action, could result in serious damage to the product and the investment of every other owner in the League. Give Sterling an A+ for passing his first major test as NBA Commissioner. This is a business, not the public square at the Iowa State Fair.

[TheSultan]

He owns a franchise in a league governed by a constitution and the voting power of the other owners. They can probably get rid of him, or anyone lese, for conduct detrimental to the League. You cannot dispute that his conduct was reprehensible. The fact that he made his comments to his mistress about her association with Magic Johnson makes it far worse than just the ramblings of an old man. 1st Amendment my ass. He is involved in a business that has rules and regulations so as to ensure that no member of the League's product is diminished in value by the conduct of others in the League. His words, if there was no action, could result in serious damage to the product and the investment of every other owner in the League. Give Sterling an A+ for passing his first major test as NBA Commissioner. This is a business, not the public square at the Iowa State Fair.


Yep. Well stated.

Also, while Constitution of the NBA likely can't force the sale of a team, my bet is that it most certainly allows teams to vote out a franchise.

[TheSultan]

I guess making an apology on twitter will no longer suffice when something stupid is said by a player. Again, Sterling needs to be punished, but I'm just wondering about the standard being set here.


Player conduct is completely different as it is handled by the CBA.

[MayorBeluga]

He owns a franchise in a league governed by a constitution and the voting power of the other owners. They can probably get rid of him, or anyone lese, for conduct detrimental to the League. You cannot dispute that his conduct was reprehensible. The fact that he made his comments to his mistress about her association with Magic Johnson makes it far worse than just the ramblings of an old man. 1st Amendment my ass. He is involved in a business that has rules and regulations so as to ensure that no member of the League's product is diminished in value by the conduct of others in the League. His words, if there was no action, could result in serious damage to the product and the investment of every other owner in the League. Give Sterling an A+ for passing his first major test as NBA Commissioner. This is a business, not the public square at the Iowa State Fair.

Agree that it's not a First Amendment issue, unless they claim the right to ban him from games if those games are played at a publicly owned facility. However, my question remains: under exactly what authority is this being done? All they have to do is show us where in the governing document, the rules or regulations of the NBA that such authority resides. Until then, it looks like "I'm morally superior than you" preening.

[unclejohn]

Agree that it's not a First Amendment issue, unless they claim the right to ban him from games if those games are played at a publicly owned facility. However, my question remains: under exactly what authority is this being done? All they have to do is show us where in the governing document, the rules or regulations of the NBA that such authority resides. Until then, it looks like "I'm morally superior than you" preening.

Except that they don't have to show us anything, and they are not going to. More than one commentator has noted that the NBA constitution is secret. The NBA has no obligation to show it to the public, and it is probably not inclined to do so. The rules almost certainly say that the commissioner can take actions "in the best interests of the league." Commissioners have done that ever since Kennesaw Mountain Landis became the first one. Landis did things that were almost certainly illegal, but nobody challenged him. Since then, the powers of commissioners have been challenged from time to time, usually by players. Owners tend to lose those battles. Al Davis won a battle or two with the NFL, but he is the only one I can think of. Rather than litigate them, most owners just take their lumps, or if they really do not like the guy on the top, they fire him, like Bud Selig and friends did to Fay Vincent.

The problem Sterling has is that he does not have any friends. I doubt if there is a single owner who would stick his neck out for the guy. So they are going to vote him down. He could sue the league, but his chances are dubious at best, and he is 80 years old, unlikely to outlive the litigation. Even the ban on games held in public arenas is likely to stand. The games themselves are not owned by the public. A team could choose to ban a particular fan for just about any reason, save for discriminatory ones. So Herb Kohl could not keep Sterling out of Bucks games because he is Jewish, (which would be a curious thing for Herb to do,) but he could exclude him for bad behavior, like getting drunk at a party and trying to seduce other people's wives (which Sterling has probably done at some point.) And the owners are going to stand behind Silver on this one. Nobody is going to let Sterling into games.

That is the real problem Sterling has. Suppose he goes to court. Suppose he wins on every point, which he won't. Suppose he does it before he dies, which he probably won't. It will just make him a member of a club where everybody hates him. That is a tough place to be when you are a young ambitious guy. It is a tougher place to be when you are an old man.

[Gato78]

I gather the authority is in the bylaws/franchise agreements the same way the League has the right to buy the Bucks if a new arena isn't being built in Milwaukee in 2017. As long as the purchase is a FMV purchase, there are no damages and no violations of franchise law. There could be a buyback issue regarding future profits and possibly capital gains tax losses versus a stepped up basis upon death. However, I think it is clear the League has the right to terminate a franchise as long as it is done pursuant to general franchise law and in accordance with its bylaws.

[Markedman]

Sounds like Sterling has no plans to just quietly go away so I imagine all of this will be played out in court..............

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

No one will argue that Sterling is a poor owner and grade-A douchebag. I just worry about the precedent this sets and the enforceability of it. Say it goes to court and Sterling wins. It would be a huge black eye on Silver and the league and would be a big thorn undermining his authority. And even if he does win, will we see this kind of stuff come to light any time someone had an axe to grind with an owner/GM/coach/player, with the "you banned Donald Sterling, so what about this guy?" the next time a PJ Carlesimo chokes a player or Ron Artest starts a brawl or Dennis Rodman...well, does what Dennis Rodman does.

I think the long-term fallout, largely from what will be unrelated events aside from people hoping that setting dirty laundry in the light will result in a Sterling-level punishment, could end up really backfiring and making the league look worse in the long run. A very slippery slope to try to stand on, especially if anyone else starts pouring more grease on the hill.

[pbiflyer]

No one will argue that Sterling is a poor owner and grade-A douchebag. I just worry about the precedent this sets and the enforceability of it. Say it goes to court and Sterling wins. It would be a huge black eye on Silver and the league and would be a big thorn undermining his authority. And even if he does win, will we see this kind of stuff come to light any time someone had an axe to grind with an owner/GM/coach/player, with the "you banned Donald Sterling, so what about this guy?" the next time a PJ Carlesimo chokes a player or Ron Artest starts a brawl or Dennis Rodman...well, does what Dennis Rodman does.

I think the long-term fallout, largely from what will be unrelated events aside from people hoping that setting dirty laundry in the light will result in a Sterling-level punishment, could end up really backfiring and making the league look worse in the long run. A very slippery slope to try to stand on, especially if anyone else starts pouring more grease on the hill.

Just a small correction. PJ Carlesimo was choked by a player. He didn't choke one. Latrell "I can't feed my family on $21 million" Sprewell choked him.

[CaribouJim]

No one will argue that Sterling is a poor owner and grade-A douchebag. I just worry about the precedent this sets and the enforceability of it. Say it goes to court and Sterling wins. It would be a huge black eye on Silver and the league and would be a big thorn undermining his authority. And even if he does win, will we see this kind of stuff come to light any time someone had an axe to grind with an owner/GM/coach/player, with the "you banned Donald Sterling, so what about this guy?" the next time a PJ Carlesimo chokes a player or Ron Artest starts a brawl or Dennis Rodman...well, does what Dennis Rodman does.

I think the long-term fallout, largely from what will be unrelated events aside from people hoping that setting dirty laundry in the light will result in a Sterling-level punishment, could end up really backfiring and making the league look worse in the long run. A very slippery slope to try to stand on, especially if anyone else starts pouring more grease on the hill.

PJ was the chokee, not the choker.

The only slippery slope I see is that the NBA waited so damn long to launch that piece of scum. He was a Lifetime Award Winner of Assclownness. If the NBA couldn't get rid of this guy I don't know what you would have to do to get launched. Re-read Gato's original post yesterday on the subject - couldn't have said it better. On so, so many levels he needed to be launched.

I like to hear Stern weigh in on this. He was Sterling's pal and I think he looked the other way all too often with Sterling.

It may get ugly in the courts, but that doesn't mean Silver wasn't right in his decision.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

My bad on PJ...regardless, while Sterling is and has been the assclown king of the NBA, this could get really ugly in court and even uglier if Sterling wins. Hopefully it won't come to that, but this kind of has that "Silver wants to assert his authority" feel to it. I hope the new commish has really thought this out and isn't biting off more than he can chew.

[Gato78]

Can you imagine if he hadn't taken decisive action? Players and coaches in full revolt? A new league could emerge. He had to do it to protect the investment of every other owner. The other owners will support the decision, when they vote, unanimously.

[Goose85]

I heard Kevin Johnson on Mike and Mike this morning. He was asked to serve as a representative for the players and was in contact with the players and the Commish. Johnson made it sound like he thought the players were ready to boycot games if Sterling wasn't basically kicked out for good. Sounded like Golden State was going to line up for the tip and then just walk off.

I think Silver, with the approval of the owners, had to give this punishment so the playoffs would continue.

[TheSultan]

Good point Goose. The players have been paid most of their contract. The owners have yet to earn most of their television revenue.

[unclejohn]

My bad on PJ...regardless, while Sterling is and has been the assclown king of the NBA, this could get really ugly in court and even uglier if Sterling wins. Hopefully it won't come to that, but this kind of has that "Silver wants to assert his authority" feel to it. I hope the new commish has really thought this out and isn't biting off more than he can chew.

Reports I have read have suggested that Sterling might well take it to court, but his chances are about equal to the 76'ers winning it all next year. Silver knows what he is doing.

[Markedman]

Reports I have read have suggested that Sterling might well take it to court, but his chances are about equal to the 76'ers winning it all next year. Silver knows what he is doing.

Doesn't matter if he wins...........if it drags out for years...http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140429/donald-sterling-nba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

This is part of why I think the lifetime ban was harsh. I know they needed quick, decisive action, but I think the league should have tried to get Sterling to step out of his own accord. I don't know how, but basically have all the owners band together to ensure that he would never field a competitive or profitable team as long as he kept them. If this thing drags for years, it will be a perpetual black eye and could really make the already-confusing Clippers situation an ugly one.

[CaribouJim]

This is part of why I think the lifetime ban was harsh. I know they needed quick, decisive action, but I think the league should have tried to get Sterling to step out of his own accord. I don't know how, but basically have all the owners band together to ensure that he would never field a competitive or profitable team as long as he kept them. If this thing drags for years, it will be a perpetual black eye and could really make the already-confusing Clippers situation an ugly one.

Don't think that will be the case, but even if it does, it beats the alternative as this year's playoffs (and season), the best in years, could have easily imploded and that would have been beyond ugly.

[TheSultan]

Don't think that will be the case, but even if it does, it beats the alternative as this year's playoffs (and season), the best in years, could have easily imploded and that would have been beyond ugly.


If they hadn't have taken the action they did, the players simply weren't going to play. Maybe it would have been a game or two, but perhaps the rest of the playoffs. Their financial incentive to do so was gone.

And so who ends up with egg on their face? The owners. They had to do what they did.