Posted on 05/16/2014 2:23:22 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Good for him.
Someone making popcorn for this? Sterling is an uber liberal in an uber liberal city dealing with an uber liberal angry mob.
The mistress threw the brick in the window, and Magic Johnson and Oprah Winfrey are stealing his TV.
There is no difference between the looters in the OJ case and the looter is the Donald Sterling case, except maybe the looters in this case are better dressed.
Little late now since they all signed off on the Constitution and the by-laws.
This is interesting. Imho, most basketball players are thugs, so I haven’t watched a game in years.
Now, if an owner instructs his ticket-takers at the home arena to disallow blacks to attend games, that is an "act". Telling one's mistress not to publicly bring blacks to games in a private conversation is not an "act".
One can argue that they overreacted to the racist ramblings of a stupid old man, but having decided to act I disagree that Silver used the wrong clause to nail Sterling with.
I am having trouble deciphering two things with this sentence in your post: (1) *Who* "decided to act" in your opinion and (2) *what* was the "act" to which you refer?
Perhaps posting the clause in question would help, Article 24 (l). The pertinent section is in bold. "The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision,including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000."
As you can see the clause is written so vaguely that Silver has wide authority under it. Loss of revenue. Harming the relationship between the league and its players. Causing sponsors to leave. Damaging the reputation of the NBA. Sterling's comments caused all of those, in Sliver's opinion, and triggered his 'best interest of the association' excuse for hitting Sterling with the higher fine. He has those powers.
He could have nailed Sterling with a lifetime ban and a million dollar fine under Article 35A (c). But that may require intent, which is hard to prove. The powers under Article 24 (l) can be based on his opinion alone. He doesn't have to prove anything.
In order to see that clause as operative, you have to assess that the ‘verbal utterance’ clause of the constitution and by-laws does not cover Sterling’s statements.
That is where we disagree, FRiend. The limitation in the cited clause disallows its use when the situation (a verbal utterance) is covered elsewhere.
Easy. They'll say that it's Sterling's racism itself that is harming the NBA. And since that is not directly addressed by the Constitution and bylaws then the Commissioner was empowered to act under the authority granted him by Article 24 (l). His comments were only evidence.
I truly think that the NBA has wanted to get rid of Sterling for a long time. He's detested by the other owners, the Clippers have been a joke for most of the time he's run them, and he's by all accounts a complete assh*le as a person. He finally gave them an excuse and where Stern was gunshy of lawsuits and publicity Silver has jumped all over it, possibly because he's new to the job and wants to establish his control. Either way, Sterling is never going to sit courtside at the Staples again.
We still disagree.
But time will tell, I am sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.