The NBA has looked the other way for a long time.
As has been pointed out in the last day, the league has argued in court that they are a singular financial entity, so they need to act like one and get rid of him.
Right, this is a large image issue for the NBA and they need to make a stance.
But overall, i think I agree with the "non story" sentiment in one regard, It's not news that some old idiot is just another run of the mill bigot. But it is a big deal with regards to the league, being one of the few owners in the league is quite prestigious and there are standards that these guys have to meet, one of those is not telling your girlfriend she can't bring black people to his games.
It's a bigger deal for the league and the players, than it is some shattering societal issue.
Some dude born in the 30s making an off color remark is hardly new news. The fact that he's said pretty crappy things in the past indicates that the NBA has looked the other way and now they have to pay the price interms of a PR hit and their relationship with the players.
I'm just convinced that someone that old with that much money must exist on another ethereal plane.
He dates a [very comparatively young] mixed race girl, despite being married, and lavishes her with with luxury $tuff. She is also [apparently] allowed to hook up with whomever she chooses, regardless of race.
He also owns an NBA team, where something like 3/4ths of the league is African American. He also goes to all their games, presumably because he enjoys it.
Based on that, you'd think he must be a very open minded swingin' senior. Until you hear him speak.
Sports Illustrated had a very good legal breakdown of what the league can do to him, including fines (very likely, though whats $10,000,000 to a guy worth exponentially more), suspension (less likely), and selling off the team (very unlikely).
The league charter is secret, but it is believed that the owners can force a team to be sold though only when there is a financial reason for doing so. SI didn't think the other owners would want him to be suspended or worse because of the precedent that would set.
The comments I heard were that he didn't want her bringing black guys to the game. He wasn't exactly dropping N-bombs. I'd classify those comments as mild. Still racist and I'm not defending him. It's a story to talk about but the media is definitely going into "OMGZ With BBQ" mode and running 24 hour watch on this.
The comments I heard were that he didn't want her bringing black guys to the game. He wasn't exactly dropping N-bombs. I'd classify those comments as mild. Still racist and I'm not defending him. It's a story to talk about but the media is definitely going into "OMGZ With BBQ" mode and running 24 hour watch on this.
Really? The things he said are EXTREMELY racist and worthy of all the media he is getting. Just because he didn't use the N bomb doesn't mean what he said is diet racism (or racist lite). The things he said come from someone who truly believes that black people are inferior. He owns a basketball team for Pete's sake.
As you might imagine, the Donald Sterling story is front-and-center here. (The irony being that before Saturday I'd have wagered that 3/4 of Clippers fans could not name the team's owner, never mind the 3 million other people who live in Los Angeles.) Rumors are that the girlfriend ("V. Stiviano") sort set a trap for Sterling, knowing his penchant for racism, and recorded the results and proceeds to be released publicly as retaliation for a lawsuit that was filed against her by Sterling's wife.
Rochelle Sterling [wife] alleges that her husband used community property to buy Stiviano a 2012 Ferrari, two Bentleys and a 2013 Range Rover, worth a total of more than $500,0000.
Sterling also allegedly gave Stiviano $1.8 million to buy a duplex on West 4th Street near the Beverly Center last December, according to the suit, which claims that Sterling additionally provided her with $240,000 for upkeep and living expenses.
The property was supposed to be held in the Sterlings’ name, Rochelle Sterling contends, but Stiviano has title and has refused to relinquish it. Arguing that the gifts were all allegedly made without Rochelle Sterling’s knowledge or consent, the complaint seeks their return along with compensatory damages.
columbia wrote:
One odd aspect that the young woman in question is 1/2 African American.
It's a plantation-era mindset. Make money off the backs of the men, fornicate all the live long day with the women, do and say nothing about either in public.
The only reason I bring it up was that case where the kid was getting bullied and no one at the school believed him, so he recorded the bullying and got charged with wiretapping. If this happened in Sterlings home and was recorded without his knowledge, is that against the law? I agree, that has nothing to do with the fact that the comments were said, I'm just curious.
My African American co-workers just told me that she had an interview with Sterling about 25 years ago. His reputation as a racist was well known at the time, and she was told going in (by a friend who already worked for the organization) not to expect to get the job, and that the only reason she was getting the interview was because she didn't have an overtly 'black' sounding name. If he had known ahead of time that she was black, she wouldn't have even been called.
count2infinity wrote:
If this happened in Sterlings home and was recorded without his knowledge, is that against the law?
(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
It depends on when and where the recording was made. Apparently the full recording is an hour long..... that's quite the rant.
Idoit40fans wrote:
Did that guy inherit the Clippers from a family member or something. NBA team is an odd choice for someone that thinks blacks are inferior.
Bought the Clippers in the early 80s for like 10 or 12 million or something; worth over half a billion today.
Say she gets fined 2,500, big whoop. As long as they can prove it's him, it's worth it. Doubt they imprison her for it
Yeah, I was thinking that it's only really an issue if we're talking about the recording being used as evidence in a trial and it being illegally obtained..
Well, the players can't serve her jail time. She could spend up to a year in county for illegally recording the conversation. And simply recording the conversation is the criminal act; she maintains that she didn't leak the recording, but that doesn't change the fact that the mere fact of having done it at all is against the law.
Idoit40fans wrote:
shafnutz05 wrote:
Idoit40fans wrote:
Did that guy inherit the Clippers from a family member or something. NBA team is an odd choice for someone that thinks blacks are inferior.
It's the perfect choice. All of those blacks working to make the owner rich.
He's paying them millions of dollars to play a game.
Remember the old Chris Rock joke...... the black athlete is rich; the white guy that writes his check is wealthy.
He was sued by the Justice Department for racist housing rental practices.
The NBA has looked the other way for a long time.
As has been pointed out in the last day, the league has argued in court that they are a singular financial entity, so they need to act like one and get rid of him.
For what? Saying something offensive in a private conversation? There is no such thing as a right to not be offended.
Say she gets fined 2,500, big whoop. As long as they can prove it's him, it's worth it. Doubt they imprison her for it
Yeah, I was thinking that it's only really an issue if we're talking about the recording being used as evidence in a trial and it being illegally obtained..
I thought of that, but what's it going to go to court for? He didn't really do anything illegal
Say she gets fined 2,500, big whoop. As long as they can prove it's him, it's worth it. Doubt they imprison her for it
Yeah, I was thinking that it's only really an issue if we're talking about the recording being used as evidence in a trial and it being illegally obtained..
I thought of that, but what's it going to go to court for? He didn't really do anything illegal
He's not. That's why I don't think it's a legal issue except maybe a fine for the girl if he presses charges against her.
