Sign in to follow this  
GamesOut

Clippers Series Distraction - Soon To Be Moved To Another Forum

Recommended Posts

 

 

Actually I am pretty sure i have done or said things that can be defined as racist in my life. Just by simply growing up in Memphis. I consider myself a person that can look "beyond" the color of a persons skin; but i by no means will ever say that i have never offended another person. I just don't know.

 

However, my parents didn't raise me to be racist i grew up being exposed to many different cultures. I learned alot on racism thru school and television and being discriminated against. People aren't born racist that is learned. Pretty much every American born person has been exposed to racist propaganda in one way or another, mostly unknowingly. What i personally try to do is become more sensitive to other people's cultures and experiences. Just because i don't consider myself "racist" doesn't mean i am incapable of saying hurtful things to other people. The hidden racist do the most damage and what keeps that ball rolling. Just because you aren't burning crosses doesn't mean you aren't a racist.

 

If you would like more proof of how Sterling feels follow this link

 

http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212

 

I disagree with your 90% estimate, but I really admire your introspection. It's a quality Sterling and some other people seem to lack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

Should have happened years ago. Sad it took this silly offense to force the NBA's hand when he clearly had issues with equality between the races for years. A slumlord who refused to rent to people of color in his nicer apartments, Sterling will likely sue the league because his previous deplorable behavior didn't even warrant a fine from the NBA. at his age he can probably tie this up in courts until he dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
Should have happened years ago. Sad it took this silly offense to force the NBA's hand when he clearly had issues with equality between the races for years. A slumlord who refused to rent to people of color in his nicer apartments, Sterling will likely sue the league because his previous deplorable behavior didn't even warrant a fine from the NBA. at his age he can probably tie this up in courts until he dies.
I wouldn't call this a silly offense.

Yes, it was fairly obvious at the least that he had issues in the past, but by not being found guilty in a court of law for both prior offenses, he was not guilty and made it legally impossible for the NBA to take action. A person that is found not guilty can't be punished based on the findings of that specific case. When a law suit is settled, as was the case with Sterling and his apartment renting, he becomes not guilty. Sterling was also found not guilty in Elgin Baylor's law suit against him. This time there is no court of law involved, only the rules of owner membership in the NBA club, so to speak. Sterling agreed with those rules when he became an owner so he must abide by them. As long as Silver follows those rules, I doubt very much that there is little if any recourse by Sterling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

Legally impossible after he paid millions of dollars to settle a housing discrimination case but not legally impossible for a private conversation with his mistress? Serioulsy?

 

The good news is the scourge of the NBA is gone. Everyone can agree it is long overdue and thet proper action to take.

 

The bad news is now the Clippers are going to get a serious owner who will make their franchise even that much better. Funny but in the long run Grizzlies fans may miss the days of the racist, profit-monger running the Clippers instead of someone who only cares about putting the best team possible on the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
Legally impossible after he paid millions of dollars to settle a housing discrimination case but not legally impossible for a private conversation with his mistress? Serioulsy?
Sterling paid to settle his case. Unless it is settled with admission to guilt, which is extremely rare, settled court cases are the same as not guilty. If you are found innocent of anything in a court of law, whether you pay for that not guilty ruling by settling the case or through trial, you can't be punished after being innocent.

As far as the "private conversation", it appears that Sterling had given her consent to record their conversations (because of his failing memory), and she has hundreds of hours of such recordings. Sterling has been around long enough to remember Watergate and should have known better.

 

I can't help but wonder how people would react if a "private conversation" was leaked where the President was heard saying that he didn't want white people in the white house, and refered to white people as "the enemy". Would that be viewed as a silly offense? Sterling, of course, is not in a powerful position as the President, but to many people he actually has more power as their direct employer. He actually has more of an impact in the daily lives of many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

Interesting point. I'm sure some people would be screaming for his ouster while others would say it was a private conversation.

 

Basically the same is it is now. ;)/>

 

I hope the standard for private citizens hasn't risen to the level of supreme leader of the country but it is a fair argument.

 

Either way I am glad he's gone and just hope the next owner is as bad as Sterling for most of his years running the team.

 

Also, asking that conversations be recorded for memory's sake isn't the same as making a public statement. I believe people can see the difference.

 

Paying fines may not carry the legal term of guilty but clearly is an admittance of guilt. The Justice department saves tax payers money by not drawing out a long legal battle to gain the guilty verdict when the penalty is simply a fine anyway. They got their money which, added to his defense bills, totaled over $10 million. That was all the government needed to achieve.

 

I doubt anyone, save for making an argument, considers him not guilty of the charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

A new point to discuss.

 

Should Sterling pass before selling the team, can the Sterling heirs inherit the team and continue to operate as owners or do the suns of the father pass to the children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
Interesting point. I'm sure some people would be screaming for his ouster while others would say it was a private conversation. Basically the same is it is now. ;)/>/> I hope the standard for private citizens hasn't risen to the level of supreme leader of the country but it is a fair argument. Either way I am glad he's gone and just hope the next owner is as bad as Sterling for most of his years running the team. Also, asking that conversations be recorded for memory's sake isn't the same as making a public statement. I believe people can see the difference. Paying fines may not carry the legal term of guilty but clearly is an admittance of guilt. The Justice department saves tax payers money by not drawing out a long legal battle to gain the guilty verdict when the penalty is simply a fine anyway. They got their money which, added to his defense bills, totaled over $10 million. That was all the government needed to achieve. I doubt anyone, save for making an argument, considers him not guilty of the charges.
Within the U.S. legal system, paying money in a court settlement is in no way an admission of guilt unless it is specifically worded that way in the settlement. You and I can easily see the morality, or lack of, in Sterlings court settlement(s), but a court of law does not. As far as the legal system goes, Sterling was found without guilt, carrying the same legal weight as if the accusations were false.

The arguement of Sterling having what is viewed as a private conversation has no bearing here because it was not in a court of law. It is about him breaking the rules that he agreed upon by becoming an owner in a private organization, the NBA. Without the NBA being bound by the findings of a court of law, they can apply the rules of their organiztion. Perhaps if Elgin Baylor had made his case to the NBA instead of going to court and then being bound by the courts findings, the NBA could have at least investigated Sterling and taken action on their own.

The NBA found that Sterling broke the rules. How they got the information has no bearing here because it was not illegally obtained. It's the NBA's rules, he agreed to the rules, he then broke the rules. There is no court of law saying that he is innocent here, so they are free to act as they see fit in applying their rules and punishment, according to their guidelines. Besides, it's about what he said and did, not about who he said it to. He either broke the rules or didn't. The arguement of private conversation ignores the act of wrong doing. If Sterling doesn't like the rules that he agreed upon when he joined his private club (NBA), it's on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
A new point to discuss. Should Sterling pass before selling the team, can the Sterling heirs inherit the team and continue to operate as owners or do the sins of the father pass to the children?
I think that this is a very good point. Some players have already drawn that line in the sand. As far as Sterlings wife, I agree with them. She has shown that at the very least, she is a person of very poor character.

For the players (and others, media, etc) to demand that the children can't own the team because of another mans actions is just wrong though. It goes against the ideals that they and the league are standing up for. I believe that this falls under the idea that they should be judged "by the content of their character", not someone elses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0
Why do you have to bring your mother into this? Sorry. Sometimes I can't resist a snappy putdown, and you made it soooo easy. However... This I say to you with the utmost seriousness... You do a grave disservice to the world, when you prohibit thought. You've called me less than human, you denigrated my character, you even made a pathetically vain and stupid comment on a post I made in another thread. And for what? Only the weak-minded can not tolerate dissent. You are WEAK and your words are a STAIN on HUMANITY. I'm done with you.
You obviously have an agenda, and a very negative one at that. The only one that has "denigrated" your character is yourself. Your accusations can more easily be used against yourself than others. You omitted the most negative statements that Sterling made in the attempt to justify his words and actions to fit your narrow agenda. I never called you "less than human", but can understand why you would think of yourself that way when you accuse another of being weak minded based solely on me not agreeing with your views made by minimizing and editing the words of Sterling. Perhaps if you took into account the entirety of Sterlings negative words and actions instead of your edited version you may see your words as a "STAIN on HUMANITY" and not mine.

You have also made it very clear who the "WEAK" one really is here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0
I think that this is a very good point. Some players have already drawn that line in the sand. As far as Sterlings wife, I agree with them. She has shown that at the very least, she is a person of very poor character. For the players (and others, media, etc) to demand that the children can't own the team because of another mans actions is just wrong though. It goes against the ideals that they and the league are standing up for. I believe that this falls under the idea that they should be judged "by the content of their character", not someone elses.

 

So if I understand your position correctly, and please correct me if I misspeak,

1) Sterling could NOT be punished for his blatant acts of racism in housing because he wasn't convicted of any crime but merely paid millions of dollars in fees and in fact is not guilty of the crimes he paid the fines for.

2) The act Sterling was punished for was his private communication with his mistress.

3) Sterling's wife can not inherit the team (or receive ownership in a divorce settlement) because she was "accused" of being a racist in the past even though she came out publicly against his comments and said neither she nor her children agree with his position. She has never been declared guilty of racism in a court after all which is the same thing that the NBA couldn't act on previously.

 

Seems like we are faced with a double standard.

 

Mrs. Sterling has not been convicted of racism and has not been taped privately or publicly making racist statements. She has publicly come out condemning Sterling's words and said she and her children do not feel as Sterling does.

 

Another thing to ponder. I wonder how the owners will vote if Sterling subpeonas all of the owners, both majority and minority partners, to testify in court that they have never used the N word in a private discussion with someone. If they say under oath that they have used the N word will they have to surrender their ownership interests as well?

 

Sterling's just a big enough jerk to do that too or at least threaten to do it if the owners vote to make him sell the team.

 

Where does the witch hunt end? Is the NBA going to be forced to ask for players permission now to see who can and can't own a team? If the players can determine who is allowed to own a team what's to stop them from insisting a minority person 'who they approve of' must be sold the team regardless of their offer being the best one on the table? What if they decide against allowing a person of asian decent and insist on only an African-American being allowed to purchase the team regardless of how much he is willing to offer?

 

This could really get ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Father Pat    0

1) Sterling could NOT be punished for his blatant acts of racism in housing because he wasn't convicted of any crime but merely paid millions of dollars in fees and in fact is not guilty of the crimes he paid the fines for. - That's right. It is very often that settlements are reached for the sole reason of not having the "guilty" stigma and takes away possible future legal claims with regard to the matter. Sterling bought his legal innocence with regard to the matter(s).

 

2) The act Sterling was punished for was his private communication with his mistress. - This is also correct. Commissioner Silver was very clear in pointing out that his decision was based on this matter alone and without regard to any of his past. He then went on to say that the owners were to take into account Sterlings past when they have their vote to remove him. Rather clever of Silver in my opinion.

 

3) Sterling's wife can not inherit the team (or receive ownership in a divorce settlement) because she was "accused" of being a racist in the past even though she came out publicly against his comments and said neither she nor her children agree with his position. She has never been declared guilty of racism in a court after all which is the same thing that the NBA couldn't act on previously. - Sterling is the sole owner. For ownership to be transfered to anyone it must be approved by the NBA (special committee). The NBA can deny ownership based on the financial state of a potential owner, and with Mrs Sterling or their children, they will more likely fall back on that to deny them ownership. Potential owners need more than just cash on hand. They must have the ability to lose money on a team in case of hard financial times unforeseen in the future. The other Sterling family members could argue their financial stability all they want, but I can easily see the committee using this as an easier way to deny them ownership without getting into other reasons.

 

The NBA owners are bound by agreement to not sue the commissioner or his rulings directly. Part of their club membership rules, so to speak. I believe that the only thing that Sterling can do is drag out the sale of the club, as the former owner of the Dodgers did. I doubt very much that there will be anything happening to make the sale of the team be seen as a "witch hunt". Sterling may look like a bigger jerk by the media, but that will be about it in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chipc3    0

Since the league by-laws are private, I don't know what they say. I do know that a forced sale would appear to be something g Sterling could and likely would pursue in a court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this