Racist Clippers Owner Sterling :"Banned For Life!!!"
- Thread starter Merlot
- Start date
Man77777 makes some valid points. First of all, was she 'wired' when the audio recording was made? If so, what were the reasons for the conversation to be recorded? Was he led into saying the stuff he said? If so, it sounds like entrapment to me.
Making such a recording of a person without their knowledge or implied consent is illegal. It sounds here like Sterling was dragged in the mud & disciplined by an illegal act itself.
It has also come out that NBA officials, fellow owners & people close to the team had known about Sterling's views for decades. So why did they put up with it? Because he was a billionaire NBA franchise owner? And now that an ex illegally recorded a conversation she had with him (out of spite, i'm guessing), he's suddenly this bad, racist bigot that they've known about all along....but never did anything about? Come on! In my eyes, for letting him get away with this kind of b.s. for so long and turning a blind eye to it, they're as guilty as he is!
I'd be willing to bet that there are other billionaire owners out there among professional sports who would make Sterling look like a choir boy! I'm also willing to bet that other owners & league officials also know about them. However, it's all good as long as no one is illegally recording their conversations with them & doesn't leak the details of the conversation to the press.
The NBA had to do something to save face & to try to calm things down. I do not doubt this. But he got fined millions for a conversation that was done in a private setting, which was illegally recorded? Really??? And he's banned for life from the NBA? Just like MLB did with George Steinbrenner? What does a lifetime ban mean anyway? Steinbrenner was reinstated a couple of years later.
I find that there is a lot of hypocrisy in place & even though i absolutely do not agree with Sterling's views, he only expressed his views in a private setting & lives in a country which is supposed to protect anyone's civil rights.....including anyone's personal views.
I believe that the discipline imposed would not have been as severe had the league been mostly a caucasian league. But the fact is, the NBA is a league where 80% of its players are african-americans and because Sterling happens to be white (thus, part of the minority), he had to pay a very high price for expressing his views privately.
Again, i'm totally against Sterling's views & do feel he had to be disciplined in some way since the league likely had to make an example out of him. But i'm certain there are professional team owners worst than Sterling who are currently getting a free pass because no one has yet to illegally record a conversation with them.
Making such a recording of a person without their knowledge or implied consent is illegal. It sounds here like Sterling was dragged in the mud & disciplined by an illegal act itself.
It has also come out that NBA officials, fellow owners & people close to the team had known about Sterling's views for decades. So why did they put up with it? Because he was a billionaire NBA franchise owner? And now that an ex illegally recorded a conversation she had with him (out of spite, i'm guessing), he's suddenly this bad, racist bigot that they've known about all along....but never did anything about? Come on! In my eyes, for letting him get away with this kind of b.s. for so long and turning a blind eye to it, they're as guilty as he is!
I'd be willing to bet that there are other billionaire owners out there among professional sports who would make Sterling look like a choir boy! I'm also willing to bet that other owners & league officials also know about them. However, it's all good as long as no one is illegally recording their conversations with them & doesn't leak the details of the conversation to the press.
The NBA had to do something to save face & to try to calm things down. I do not doubt this. But he got fined millions for a conversation that was done in a private setting, which was illegally recorded? Really??? And he's banned for life from the NBA? Just like MLB did with George Steinbrenner? What does a lifetime ban mean anyway? Steinbrenner was reinstated a couple of years later.
I find that there is a lot of hypocrisy in place & even though i absolutely do not agree with Sterling's views, he only expressed his views in a private setting & lives in a country which is supposed to protect anyone's civil rights.....including anyone's personal views.
I believe that the discipline imposed would not have been as severe had the league been mostly a caucasian league. But the fact is, the NBA is a league where 80% of its players are african-americans and because Sterling happens to be white (thus, part of the minority), he had to pay a very high price for expressing his views privately.
Again, i'm totally against Sterling's views & do feel he had to be disciplined in some way since the league likely had to make an example out of him. But i'm certain there are professional team owners worst than Sterling who are currently getting a free pass because no one has yet to illegally record a conversation with them.
There was no illegality - Sterling knew he was being recorded and told the NBA it is his voice and he consented to being recorded. Therefore it was not "private". A public figure who allows himself to be recorded with his knowledge is giving a speech to the public. The NBA had this knowledge when Sterling was given his punishment. The NBA also interviewed Sterling who verified that the views expressed on the recording were his and he did not share any other opinions or views with the NBA.
It's also common sense that if any crime was committed the NBA would not be allowed to investigate a police matter. The police at a minimum would be present during any interviews or would ask the NBA to defer their investigation until the police investigation was completed. However since Sterling told the NBA the recording was consented to, the police and LE did not get involved.
It's also common sense that if any crime was committed the NBA would not be allowed to investigate a police matter. The police at a minimum would be present during any interviews or would ask the NBA to defer their investigation until the police investigation was completed. However since Sterling told the NBA the recording was consented to, the police and LE did not get involved.
I saw nothing in any of the press reports that indicated that Sterling consented to being recorded.
The NBA commissioner said that Sterling admitted that it was his voice....but gave no further information....
The NBA commissioner said that Sterling admitted that it was his voice....but gave no further information....
You were not paying attention because it was reported by ESPN and TMZ and the information was shared with Silver:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba
"The recordings that have been released were made in September, and Sterling knew he was being recorded, the source told Shelburne. Stiviano has several additional hours of audio and video recordings of Sterling, according to the source."
Do you really think Adam Silver, who was an attorney at one of the best law firms in NYC, would be such a dummy as to ban someone based on illegally obtained evidence?
So you base your facts on a 'source' that told Shelbrune that Sterling was aware he was being recorded? A SOURCE????? So if a 'source' says that Sterling knew, you take this as fact?
Come on Beave, you can do better than that! :lol:
If i tell Iggy & Joe T that you can make monkeys come out of your ass, is this fact?? Should people believe this just because a 'source', in this case myself, says so?
What would Sterling gain by allowing himself to be recorded while blurting out all kinds of racist stuff & venting against blacks to a person in a private setting? It makes no sense!
Adam Silver indicated in his press conference that he had spoken to Sterling, and Sterling told him nothing differently. He heard it right from the horse's mouth and said so in his press conference.
TMZ also reported that Sterling's girlfriend regularly taped their conversations and he knew of it. One can imagine that one of the reasons she may have been doing so (and why Sterling consented to this arrangement) was that Sterling's wife was suing her for being a golddigger and ripping Sterling off in exchange for sex. At issue was a $1.8 million duplex that she had which Rochelle wanted back.
It's also common sense that the only reason to illegally tape someone would be to shake them down and threaten them with release of the recording. However now that the tape is out there and Sterling is banned, the tape has no value in terms of blackmail. He is already done and cannot get his team back. The remaining tapes have no value. So it makes no sense that this would be done illegally, the NBA would rubber-stamp it and no threat for money was ever made as was the case with Rick Pitino. And we know this was reported to the NBA before it was reported to the media because the 1st media report was that the NBA was investigating Sterling.
TMZ also reported that Sterling's girlfriend regularly taped their conversations and he knew of it. One can imagine that one of the reasons she may have been doing so (and why Sterling consented to this arrangement) was that Sterling's wife was suing her for being a golddigger and ripping Sterling off in exchange for sex. At issue was a $1.8 million duplex that she had which Rochelle wanted back.
It's also common sense that the only reason to illegally tape someone would be to shake them down and threaten them with release of the recording. However now that the tape is out there and Sterling is banned, the tape has no value in terms of blackmail. He is already done and cannot get his team back. The remaining tapes have no value. So it makes no sense that this would be done illegally, the NBA would rubber-stamp it and no threat for money was ever made as was the case with Rick Pitino. And we know this was reported to the NBA before it was reported to the media because the 1st media report was that the NBA was investigating Sterling.
If Adam Silver thought there was any chance that there was an appeal based on evidence having been illegally obtained he would not have done what he did nor said what he said at the press conference. This guy is a seasoned attorney who worked many years at one of the best firms in NYC and knows what he is doing. If there was any concern he had that the evidence on which the ban was based was illegal he would have said that. He didn't. He also indicated he had spoken to Sterling directly and said he did not hear from him differently regarding what was on the tape. He specifically said Sterling did not share with him any views other than what he admitted saying on the tape. Sterling admitted that it was him and that he consented to it. If that was not the case then Silver defers to and permits the LAPD to investigate the matter, and suspends Sterling INDEFINITELY pending that investigation. That ain't what happened. He handed out a permanent ban.
You guys have to learn to read between the lines a little bit better. This matter would not have been handled as it was if the tape was not authentic and consent was not obtained. Period and end of story.
You guys have to learn to read between the lines a little bit better. This matter would not have been handled as it was if the tape was not authentic and consent was not obtained. Period and end of story.
Guys,
You're using harsh nonsense connections and labels to propagandize what is being done to Sterling, mischaracterization of the punishment for your own purpose. NO ONE is accusing him of crimes and he is not being treated in any like way as a criminal, just as NO ONE is treating him like "enemy number one".
The NBA is a business with a de facto board of franchise owners whose ability to make their franchises profitable can depend on what the other owners do to increase those profits or diminish them if the effect of one or more owners is broad enough. In any business any branch manager ( akin to the NBA team owners ) who creates a situation by actions that spreads damage to the business of the company ( the NBA ) can and would be removed. In the case of Sterling his racism caused sponsors to start to flee, generated bad morale among the workers ( athletes and team support ) that reports say was about to lead threatened work stoppage ( refusal to play games ), and a great deal of anger among fans ( paying clients ).
Mr. Sterling can keep his opinion, his freedom of speech, and he will be paid handsomely for his ownership of the team. He just won't be able to have all of that any more and continue to do a lot of damage to the business of the NBA corporation, which the other owners and the commissioner have every right to protect against someone who has made himself an undeniable threat to that business by his own freely chosen words to questions he was free to answer in any manner he chose. If he was too ignorant to know what he was saying would be very damaging to the business it's just another reason to get rid of him since then he's becomes a factor that cannot be fixed and indeed has given abundant evidence over the years that he is unwilling to change for the benefit of the corporation....ie...screw the moron.
That's laughable. You're suggestion treats a grown man with a long history of racist tendencies like a little child babbling on an issue he can't possibly understand. He's been known for many years to just like the way he acted when recorded. When a grown person freely chooses answers to questions over a significant speech that consistently demonstrate a racist perspective, he's a racist.
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-audio-v-stiviano-recorded-clippers/
Donald Sterling was AWARE he was being taped during the conversation that was posted on TMZ
Sports, in which the L.A. Clippers owner went on a racial rant ... so claims the woman who taped him.
A source connected with V. Stiviano tells TMZ Sports ... the full conversation lasted approximately 1 hour. We're told Stiviano insists it was clear to Sterling at the beginning of the conversation he was being recorded.
What's more ... our sources say Stiviano routinely recorded her conversations with Sterling as HIS "archivist." And what's more ... she would regularly play the tapes back to him because he would often forget what he had said.
Our sources say sometime after the tape was recorded on April 9 ... Stiviano and Sterling got in an argument because he wanted her to sign a confidentiality agreement ... which she would not. We're told he then denied ever making the racist statements on the tape, so she played the entire tape for back him ... before it was ever posted on TMZ Sports.
Sterling apologists need to deal with this.
Agreed. As someone with an expertise in law Adam Silver would never have made such a huge move if he wasn't very comfortable with that move and the consequences of it.
Some of the apologists here are the same ones who said Alex Rodriguez would never be suspended for any length of time because of privacy issues and certain implied illegalities. Just as before, the commissioner has a great deal at stake by making such moves. If Silver went this far with his first major decision you can be sure he as a lawyer feels very sure about his position.
Merlot
You're using harsh nonsense connections and labels to propagandize what is being done to Sterling, mischaracterization of the punishment for your own purpose. NO ONE is accusing him of crimes and he is not being treated in any like way as a criminal, just as NO ONE is treating him like "enemy number one".
The NBA is a business with a de facto board of franchise owners whose ability to make their franchises profitable can depend on what the other owners do to increase those profits or diminish them if the effect of one or more owners is broad enough. In any business any branch manager ( akin to the NBA team owners ) who creates a situation by actions that spreads damage to the business of the company ( the NBA ) can and would be removed. In the case of Sterling his racism caused sponsors to start to flee, generated bad morale among the workers ( athletes and team support ) that reports say was about to lead threatened work stoppage ( refusal to play games ), and a great deal of anger among fans ( paying clients ).
Mr. Sterling can keep his opinion, his freedom of speech, and he will be paid handsomely for his ownership of the team. He just won't be able to have all of that any more and continue to do a lot of damage to the business of the NBA corporation, which the other owners and the commissioner have every right to protect against someone who has made himself an undeniable threat to that business by his own freely chosen words to questions he was free to answer in any manner he chose. If he was too ignorant to know what he was saying would be very damaging to the business it's just another reason to get rid of him since then he's becomes a factor that cannot be fixed and indeed has given abundant evidence over the years that he is unwilling to change for the benefit of the corporation....ie...screw the moron.
That's laughable. You're suggestion treats a grown man with a long history of racist tendencies like a little child babbling on an issue he can't possibly understand. He's been known for many years to just like the way he acted when recorded. When a grown person freely chooses answers to questions over a significant speech that consistently demonstrate a racist perspective, he's a racist.
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-audio-v-stiviano-recorded-clippers/
Donald Sterling was AWARE he was being taped during the conversation that was posted on TMZ
Sports, in which the L.A. Clippers owner went on a racial rant ... so claims the woman who taped him.
A source connected with V. Stiviano tells TMZ Sports ... the full conversation lasted approximately 1 hour. We're told Stiviano insists it was clear to Sterling at the beginning of the conversation he was being recorded.
What's more ... our sources say Stiviano routinely recorded her conversations with Sterling as HIS "archivist." And what's more ... she would regularly play the tapes back to him because he would often forget what he had said.
Our sources say sometime after the tape was recorded on April 9 ... Stiviano and Sterling got in an argument because he wanted her to sign a confidentiality agreement ... which she would not. We're told he then denied ever making the racist statements on the tape, so she played the entire tape for back him ... before it was ever posted on TMZ Sports.
Sterling apologists need to deal with this.
Agreed. As someone with an expertise in law Adam Silver would never have made such a huge move if he wasn't very comfortable with that move and the consequences of it.
Some of the apologists here are the same ones who said Alex Rodriguez would never be suspended for any length of time because of privacy issues and certain implied illegalities. Just as before, the commissioner has a great deal at stake by making such moves. If Silver went this far with his first major decision you can be sure he as a lawyer feels very sure about his position.
Merlot
I was thinking the same thing when i first read and heard the comments. In other words, he didn't want the 'criminal elements' that she associated with at the games. The gangstas types.
The bottom line is that the more we hear about the story, the more we become aware that the league & other league sources has known about Sterling's views and that he was a horny old man a long time ago, yet chose to turn a blind eye to it. This is a league that usually has zero tolerance for nonsense and has fined & disciplined players, coaches & owners (e.g. Mark Cuban) for whatever infractinon, meaningless or somewhat serious. And now that Sterling has been exposed publicly as a racist & a bigot, the league suddenly does a 180 and throws the hammer at the guy.
The league is as guilty as he is for not doing anything sooner about this jerk!
Beav, hate to say it even though you are a lawyer, your assumptions are dead wrong.
Read the following article. The NBA does not have a morals clause with its owners. Silver moved to ban Sterling because the NBA players association threatened to walk out on during the playoffs, which would have cost the league lots of money.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...ba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/
I will quote the most interesting part of this article:
While Silver said he had not polled the owners, he expressed confidence there will be sufficient support to oust Sterlin. Silver's bold prediction suggests he has the necessary votes. That said, expect there to be some debate among owners. No owner will defend Sterling's racism, but some might question whether article 13 and potentially other authorizing language was intended for this type of transgression. Expect some owners to raise the following four concerns:
1. Neither the Clippers nor Sterling is in financial trouble. Article 13 was designed as an extraordinary remedy for such a problem -- not other problems. While sponsors have dropped their deals with the Clippers and players have contemplated boycotts, the team appears to be in strong financial shape with a deep-pocketed, if reviled, owner. There is no reason to believe that Sterling has committed financial fraud, and while he has been sued over allegations of race, those cases were either settled or unsuccessful.
2. The Clippers are not run in a racist way. Sterling may be extremely bigoted and hold reprehensible views, but there is no reason to suspect that the team itself operates in a racist way. The current Clippers workplace appears to be a productive setting, devoid of allegations by players or other employees that they have experienced racism. Similarly, there are no reports that the Clippers have directed ticket sales and marketing efforts away from minority fans. As a franchise, the Clippers appear to be well-run, which would make it an unusual candidate for termination.
3. Lack of 'morals clause'. Article 13 lists a series of enumerated wrongs, some of which are specific but none of which seem directly relevant to an owner whose racism expressed in a private conversation sparks national outrage. Some owners might argue that if the NBA wanted ouster as a remedy for a situation like this one, the constitution and bylaws' drafters would have included it. Along those lines, there is no "morals clause" in these documents that empowers the ousting an NBA owner. The absence of a morals clause, in contrast to the inclusion of other provisions, could suggest that such a clause was intentionally omitted.
4. Precedent. While Sterling's actions seem unlikely to be replicated by another owner, some owners could worry that if they agree to oust Sterling, different situations might give rise to the same consequence for other owners. Once one owner is ousted, there is precedent to do it again. Mark Cuban recently voiced those exact concerns, calling the situation "a slippery slope."
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/#ixzz30fO8Y3lu
Sterling is an attorney also. He moved his team from San Diego to Los Angeles without the NBA's permission, which is against the rules of the NBA. The NBA took legal action against Sterling. However, Sterling prevailed not in court, but out of court. Before any decisions were made by any courts, the NBA dropped their suits. So the NBA is up against a seasoned lawyer with no doubt a high powered team of attorneys. Silver did what he did to buy time, and nothing else. Silver is not on good legal footing.
Plus, we still don't know if the tape was made legally. Sterling has yet to speak about his consent. And we don't know if TMZ had consent in leaking the tape. Both actions are illegal in California if Sterling did not give his consent.
Hmmm,
http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2014/05/nba-unsuccessfully-tried-get-rid-donald-sterling-1982/
Bad presumption. The NBA tried to get rid of "this jerk" before for making statements about purposely dumping games, and in the current case the NBA probably felt it finally had the undeniable proof it needed to act.
First this contradicts your own statement; "...now that Sterling has been exposed publicly as a racist & a bigot..."
I thought about this point of view that Sterling might have been referring only to "gangsta types". If one believes that this was the true context, and that Sterling would find the accusations highly offensive and become angered by the incredibly negative reactions, he should be indignant, resentful, etc. Presuming his statements were taken out of context and he's not really a racist, and also that the alleged misperception that has the world so up in arms to the point where it can cost him his team, you could definitely expect some sort of explanation or response about being so wrongly accused...or maybe an apology for the statements.
Well, with two days to think it over and consult with lawyers or public relations handlers what does he do after all that time to think it over? He says nothing to tell people they are wrong about him, he doesn't even address the racist accusations at all. All he says is..."I wish I had just paid her off" according to all reports.
He doesn't seem to care at all that he's being condemned as a racist, which tells a lot about how he thinks and feels in the face of being branded with a hate label. Still the guy may not be a "racist"...I get the feeling he doesn't give a damn about anyone and would use any person like garbage any time it could get anything for him.
Merlot
http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2014/05/nba-unsuccessfully-tried-get-rid-donald-sterling-1982/
Bad presumption. The NBA tried to get rid of "this jerk" before for making statements about purposely dumping games, and in the current case the NBA probably felt it finally had the undeniable proof it needed to act.
First this contradicts your own statement; "...now that Sterling has been exposed publicly as a racist & a bigot..."
I thought about this point of view that Sterling might have been referring only to "gangsta types". If one believes that this was the true context, and that Sterling would find the accusations highly offensive and become angered by the incredibly negative reactions, he should be indignant, resentful, etc. Presuming his statements were taken out of context and he's not really a racist, and also that the alleged misperception that has the world so up in arms to the point where it can cost him his team, you could definitely expect some sort of explanation or response about being so wrongly accused...or maybe an apology for the statements.
Well, with two days to think it over and consult with lawyers or public relations handlers what does he do after all that time to think it over? He says nothing to tell people they are wrong about him, he doesn't even address the racist accusations at all. All he says is..."I wish I had just paid her off" according to all reports.
He doesn't seem to care at all that he's being condemned as a racist, which tells a lot about how he thinks and feels in the face of being branded with a hate label. Still the guy may not be a "racist"...I get the feeling he doesn't give a damn about anyone and would use any person like garbage any time it could get anything for him.
Merlot
No they are not, nor have we heard anything to the contrary. The fact that a walkout was threatened does not change the fact that if Silver had knowledge that the recording was, or might have been, illegally obtained, that whole press conference would have been worded and structured totally differently, AND the suspension would have been indefinite, not permanent. You seem not to understand that if there had been an "indefinite" suspension there would have been no reason for the players to walkout, so bringing up the walkout threat is totally irrelevant to the point I made (which you clearly did not get). The players would have walked out only if Sterling was left in charge as of game time Tuesday, and it is crystal clear that was not going to happen regardless of how the tape came to the NBA. So the only issue is what Silver actually said vs. what he could have said were the facts different. A point you clearly did not understand.
You also do not know what Sterling told Silver and his office. You pretend that the NBA never asked Sterling directly about his consent during their investigation. Read between the lines. Do you think Adam Silver is that stupid? The NBA was investigating this matter for a long time before the story ever broke.
Did you even take the time to read the Sports Illustrated article?
The NBA has NO MORAL CLAUSE concerning the owner. The NBA is on shaky ground. You should understand contract law, don't you?
That SI article was written by a law professor.
And is Adam Silver stupid? Yes and No. He was facing a walkout by the NBA players during the playoffs.
He rushed his decision way too fast though. The NBA will lose in the legal courts.
Daydreamer,
The lack of a morals clause is not the end of the analysis. If you think that a SI article is the definitive legal treatise on this issue then you are dumber than I thought.
I will say it a 3rd time, there would have been no walkout had there been an indefinite suspension.
The lack of a morals clause is not the end of the analysis. If you think that a SI article is the definitive legal treatise on this issue then you are dumber than I thought.
I will say it a 3rd time, there would have been no walkout had there been an indefinite suspension.
There was a definite suspension. Didn't you read it on the news?
The SI article is a good analysis of the situation. I have read other interpretations / articles that bring up the same point saying that the NBA has specific by-laws about forcing an owner to sell his team and there is nothing in their by-laws that says that the NBA can force Sterling to sell on what transpired.
And don't call me dumb. Would you want me to say that you are a lousy unlearned attorney?
From your first sentence, it is clear you did not understand what I posted and it is not worth responding to your posts on this subject.
Sorry, but you have not said one pertinent item in your posts.
And you haven't given one legitimate reason why the NBA has the right to force Sterling to sell his team. Not one reason.
All you say is Adam Silver is a lawyer and he wouldn't have done what he has done if he wasn't right in doing it.
It's not my ability to understand, but your inability to debate and reason that is the problem here.
This article recites all of the legal authority Silver has under the NBA by laws to suspend Sterling:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbe...rs-owner-donald-sterling-frm-league-for-life/
I chose to focus not on his legal reasons for doing what he did which are all summarized in this article, but to focus instead on the issue of what Silver actually said and why his words indicate that consent is not going to be an issue. Your failure to grasp my point is your failure. I never sought to focus on Silver's legal authority but on what he said and why a permanent ban implied certain facts he found. You then brought up a totally different issue which I had not discussed, saying I was "wrong" on something that was not even a topic I set out to discuss. I have no interest in having a debate with you on the matter of Silver's legal authority.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbe...rs-owner-donald-sterling-frm-league-for-life/
I chose to focus not on his legal reasons for doing what he did which are all summarized in this article, but to focus instead on the issue of what Silver actually said and why his words indicate that consent is not going to be an issue. Your failure to grasp my point is your failure. I never sought to focus on Silver's legal authority but on what he said and why a permanent ban implied certain facts he found. You then brought up a totally different issue which I had not discussed, saying I was "wrong" on something that was not even a topic I set out to discuss. I have no interest in having a debate with you on the matter of Silver's legal authority.
Most attorneys I have met are arrogant. You must not be an exception to that. This is what you said. I disagreed with you based on the articles I have read. Then you go ape crap, calling me dumber than you thought I was.
The article you quoted is wrong according to the article I quoted. The article I quoted was written by a Law Professor. He goes through the NBA laws and by-laws and explains that there are specific reasons for forcing an owner to severe his team. None of them applied.
This is in the article you quoted:
Silver also said that he would force the sale of the Los Angeles Clippers franchise to remove Sterling from the NBA’s ownership ranks. Silver has the power to do this under Paragraph 13 of the constitution, which allows the leagues ownership to terminate another owner’s franchise rights with a three-fourths vote of the NBA Board of Governors. In the case at hand, the owners will most likely use the provision that allows for termination when an owner “fails to fulfill a contractual obligation in such a way as to affect the [league] or its members adversely.”
The author misquoted the provision. That provision only applies to the NBA's ability to ban and suspend Sterling, not force the sale of his team.
Silver has broad authority under the NBA's constitution and bylaws to suspend and fine an owner for conduct detrimental to the NBA. According to Sliver, Sterling admitted it was his voice on the recording in which he made racist remarks. Even if the recording was unlawfully created under California law -- the recording would likely be unlawful if the conversation was confidential and Sterling didn't give consent -- Silver is authorized to punish Sterling based on the recording's impact on the league. It is safe to say that Sterling's comments, which elicited the rebuke of President Barack Obama, have deeply harmed the NBA and its relationship with players, sponsors and fans. Sterling seems to lack a viable argument that his conduct was not seriously detrimental to the NBA.
But to actually force the sale of his team, there are only a few reasons that would force which is in my post above and the article I posted the link to.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/#ixzz30gLKdU00
You never read that article. Your response to me is quite arrogant and you on top of it link an article which has information. You did arrogantly say Adam Silver wouldn't have did what he did if he didn't have the power to do so. I disagreed with you and you called me dumb.
You come across as being quite arrogant.
Similar threads
