Skip to comments.How can the NBA be a black league (Charles Barkley) if NBA commish says it's a multiracial league?
Posted on 04/30/2014 8:35:03 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Are the two reconcilable?
Secondly, should (not can) an owner of a team be forced to sell his team, and/or be banned from attending any NBA game as a non-owner - attending a NBA game like any other person?
Example: Is the situation of an owner saying that blacks cannot eat in his restaurant different from someone saying that now the restaurant is under new management, and the racists will no longer be allowed to eat in that same restaurant?
When hunting monsters should society be careful that it doesn't become a monster when doing so? I think so.
Deal with the bad (racism, etc), but don't stoop to their level...
What say you?
As I posted yesterday:
Slaves do not dream of being free. They dream of being master.
Perhaps if the want to be a “black league” so much, then they no longer need merchandise or ticket money from white folks?
The NBA may not be the least multi-racial major league but its far from the most multi-racial.
MLB and the NFL are clearly the two most diverse major league sporting associations.
Minnesota Timberwolves starting five.
He owns one franchise of a larger business, and in any franchised business there are any number of ways to force a franchisee out.
If the franchisor or the other franchisees determine that he is hurting the entire business and threatening its reputation, they are often empowered to act.
Perhaps someone should step in and say that it is a chocolate league. /sarcasm.
Remember when Nagin said something like that after being taken to task over his previous words.
I’m still wondering if New Orleans is ever going to have a chocolate Mardi Gras.
How about the NBA as a whole?
The sale will be tied up in court for years. Silver will regret starting this farce. The only winners are lawyers.
So, a person who was told they could not eat in a restaurant because they are black can one day own that restaurant and tell the previous owner that he cannot eat in his restaurant because he is a racist?
Has the hunter of monsters become one himself, then?
remember what a black MN politician said about that?
And the response from white community leaders was?
The N b a?
Now Political Correctness is Law. It is now illegal to be an a$$hole in America. The designation will be subjective to those who are offended and the perp is guilty until his/her penance is done through punishment based on the level of offense the offended have emotionally displayed with the aid of our statist media. Punishment can be anything from shame to loss of property, wealth and prison at the hands of organizations, media whores, government and special interest groups.
The old fart is a racists relic, no doubt. But we all better watch what we say, Freedom of Speech is intrinsically dead.
It was Larry Johnson who wanted the NBA to become segregated. I don’t think Charles Barkeley had anything to do with it. I am not aware of anything from Charles that makes me think he’s a racist like Larry Johnson.
If I was a Knicks fan, I would totally stop supporting the team in any way until they get rid of Larry Johnson, who by his comments is the face of the Knicks right now.
I have a feeling the recordings will be inadmissible in court, and the NBA will have no way to justify its actions. I will have to check the California Evidence Code on admission of illegal recordings.
Why isn’t the NAACP, and other calling for more Latinos/Hispanics to be in the NBA - that there is a clear shortage of them in the NBA?
What about more Latinos/Hispanics being NBA coaches?
I think you get the point.
This “Can of Worms” has yet to be fully explored and adjudicated. There are a lot of Constitutional questions involved. A lot!
You've got it all wrong. Larry Johnson is the reason why Dolan's shelling out $12 M a year to Phil Jackson. Without LJ demonstrating his manangerial incompetence on a daily basis, there would be no PJ coming in as the savior.
Barkley, spike (racist) lee, al (just bros.) Sharpton will demand a law prohibiting “whitey” from owning anything.
Best Monty Python voice. “And Jews. Don’t forget the Jews.”
Section 631 makes recording telephone conversations illegal without consent. Section 632 makes recording private conversations illegal without consent. Both go on to state: "Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding."
Whether these sections apply to recorded private conversations that are not communicated by telephone or cell phones is not clear.
Like it or hate it:
Let the blacks have the NBA, from top to bottom,
let them , ALONE, fill the seats.
I’ll watch that Titanic sail, waving gladly.
If the players are going to consider a player walkout every time somebody feels offended, eventually the white fans (and the money) is going to disappear.
Everything seems to be all blacks all the time. Music, movies, sports, etc. They have been on quite a run, but if they overreach, things could change.
Lawyer: "Ms Bimbo did you record the plaintiff saying this?"
Ms Bimbo: Invokes the 5th amendment.
I said on another post anyone who supports the NBA, even to the point of giving a damn about who wins or loses, that person is part of the problem.
Ms. Bimbo is going to be a lonely woman. No guy wants someone recording their conversations.
Adam Silver is a slimy little weasel. So is Barkley.
Adam Silver is a slimy little weasel. So is Barkley.
There are a lot of important principles at play here. This is an Orwellian thought crime, not a conduct crime. We know what he really thinks. But if we knew what anyone really thinks about everything, they would probably lose their livelihoods. I do not agree with Sterling's views. But if my views on gay marriage were public, I could not be CEO of Mozilla or a lot of companies.
We are living the tyranny of the minority rather than that of the majority in this country. The U.S. is in upside down land.
They don’t need the tapes, they have the press clippings. Nobody really cares what he said, what they care about is that it blew up into a giant kerfuffle that damaged the reputation of the league. A big part of the problem is that everybody has known Sterling is a jerk for a long time, there’s guy that cover the NBA pointing to articles they wrote about him 5, 10, 20 years ago. That’s really why this has blown up, it’s not the first time he stepped over the PC line, it’s not even the first time he’s generated press with it, but it’s now hit enough times that people are asking why nothing has ever been done about him before. Stern got really lucky he retired before all this since he was the commish for most of Sterling’s other incident, he’d have a lot of explaining to do; with him out Silver is free to ignore the past and deal with the now.
You are right about Sterling, but Silver stated specifically that his decision was based entirely on the recording, not on prior incidents. If the decision is challenged, he would not be able to bring in matters that he did not take into account in reaching his decision. I could see an argument that the decision was a breach of the NBA bylaws and the NBA would have no way to defend its decision. Its evidence is inadmissible. If they want to talk about prior conduct, they have to bring a new investigation, and reopen those prior acts. They may not want to do that, since they let those incidents go years and decades ago, and some of them were never proven.
Of course he said that, saying prior incidents played into it would be throwing Stern (the guy who hand picked him as successor) under the bus. But let’s face it, prior incidents are playing heavily into this issue, one of the big questions that’s been asked is why nothing has been done about him in the past. The decision won’t be in breach of NBA bylaws, guarantee everything in the punishment is allowable, Silver is a lawyer and he’s been with the league for 22 years, he knows the bylaws and he knows what his limitations are. Also he surely ran it all by the other owners so he’s got plenty of backing. Next owner’s meeting there will be a vote to eject Sterling from the league and the worst it’ll get 25 votes, well more than the 3/4 it needs to pass.
I don't think any lawyer in his right mind would let the girl testify.
See my post 24. The tape will be inadmissible in any court proceeding.
If Sterling challenges the decision, it will be on the basis that the bylaws do not allow Sterling to be sanctioned for something that never happened. And legally, the words uttered by Sterling on those tapes never happened. The tapes can't be used, the transmissions of what's on those tapes can't be used, and the person who created and anyone who disseminated those tapes can be prosecuted. (Not that they would be in LA, but that doesn't make it not a crime.)
So, posit a scenario where the bylaws allow the league to act if an owner does X, Y and Z. The league will not be able to demonstrate that this owner did X, Y and Z.
You keep bringing prior acts into it. Silver explicitly stated (and I'm sure his written decision makes clear) that the evidence on which the league acted, the X, Y and Z of this decision, is the tape and what Sterling said on the tape. If the tape cannot be evidence in any legal proceeding, the league can't say a valid reason why it sanctioned Sterling.
The league can always bring a new proceeding, and try to prove that Sterling is a racist. There may be issues under the bylaws with a new proceeding, or with the X, Y and Z of that investigation, but it is entirely possible they could find a way to get rid of him after an investigation that found what the bylaws require. But that's not the state of things right now.
As for being kicked out by the owners, there will be tremendous pressure on the owners to vote to kick him out. Nearly irresistible pressure. The same race mongers who are after Sterling will come after any and all owners who even think of voting to let him stay in the league, no matter the reasoning. And that issue will come down to what the bylaws say as to the grounds on which an owner can be forced to lose his team. I am not privy to the NBA bylaws. I can venture to say that, whatever the bylaws say, the owners will not be able to use the tape or anything said on it as part of their "official" reason. If they do, they will run afoul of California law on evidentiary use of illegally obtained recordings, just as Silver has.
As for Silver being a lawyer with 22 years in the league, that may be his problem. He knows the bylaws through and through, no doubt. He appears not to be aware of the evidence code, and I doubt he's ever been a trial lawyer. Guys who do deals and who work in house for decades often lose sight of some of the key issues that a litigator spots instantly. This may be one.
I appreciate your layperson's perspective. Keep an eye on events, and see if what I am talking about do not become the issues in this dispute.
It doesn’t matter if the tapes are admissible (note the law you site is PENAL code, not civil, so they probably actually WILL be admissible). He’s not being punished for the tapes, he’s being punished for the REACTION to the tapes in the press, and one way or the other the press clipping will be admissible.
Something did happen, with or without the tapes it can be proven that Sterling drew a ton of bad press.
The league will be able to demonstrate this owner did X, Y, and Z. He brought bad press, easily shown.
Prior acts matter. They’re a significant part of the bad press he brought. And remember Silver’s statement was at a press conference, it hold no legal binding. He’s free to get up in a court of law under oath and say “hell yes his previous acts factored into the punishment, I said they didn’t in the press conference because I didn’t want to throw my good friend and predecessor David Stern under the bus, but I won’t perjure myself for him, they factored in”.
The league doesn’t need to prove Sterling is an anything other than embarrassment. He embarrassed the league, the league has a duty to its other owners and shareholders to protect its image, so they punished him.
The bylaws say a 3/4 vote is needed, if 3/4 of the owners agree that owner X is a pain in the #$% and needs to go he’s gone.
Evidence code does not matter. A - it’s penal, B - there’s TONS of evidence that isn’t the tapes of every reason the NBA has for punishing him.
The fact that this is a penal code statute is of no relevance to the admissibility of these tapes in a civil proceeding. The statute says so by its own terms. I have a case right now against a plaintiff representing himself, and it can be frustrating. Please, just trust me. I know what I am talking about. If this was a case in which you found yourself embroiled, what would you do? If you are smart (and I believe you are) you would contact a lawyer to analyze it for you. That's what you should do here instead of trying to figure it out for yourself. As Rumsfeld said, you don't know about the unknown unknowns.
Likewise for the claim that he is being punished for the reaction. That is not what Silver said. He based it on the tapes, not the reaction to the tapes. I doubt very much that the NBA bylaws provide that if the public doesn't like you, the NBA can fine you. The bylaws would have to provide for some kind of proscribed conduct by its owners, players and coaches. Otherwise, Danny Ainge would have been out of the league decades ago. :).
I see you are repeating yourself on several things, and I am not going to repeat why they are incorrect. Go in peace, my good man, but just remember this post and check back with me in a few weeks or whenever Sterling's lawyers lay out their arguments.
Don’t expect it...there’s too many white idiots who’ve “gotta have their basketball”..
You really should learn to listen to other people. As I’ve pointed out multiple times they don’t NEED the tape to be admissible if it goes to court, they have the press clipping. The tape doesn’t matter, the tape NEVER mattered, he’s being punished for the PR hit, the PR hit is easily proven. And what Silver said in the press conference also doesn’t matter.
It’s just a presser, not under oath, not useful as any form of evidence, he can contradict every single word he said in the presser while under oath with no repercussions.
the bylaws provide for conduct detrimental to the league: http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf which means PR hits. Sterling doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Only reason I’m repeating myself is because you keep saying the same wrong thing over and over. Since you can’t come up with something new there’s no need for me to. Sterling probably won’t sue, or if he does it’ll be with the goal of dragging this out until after he dies. If it actually lands in court he will lose.
They could conceivably call the harlot as a witness and have her state what he said. That would not be hearsay, nor would it be derived from the tape, unless used to refresh her memory. Lots of permutations here.
Re: the bylaws, the NBA can't prove conduct detrimental unless they can prove conduct. PR damage is not "conduct". Conduct is a regular word, not a legal concept, look it up. But, as I said, don't try this at home, please. You'll only drive yourself crazy for no reason.
Thanks for the link, I'll see what it says.
No the press clippings are the meat. Whether or not what they’re reporting is true is besides the point. The point is his actions allowed this firestorm of bad press, that’s the part that matters.
Here’s the clause Silver is using:
The clause that mentions $2,500,000 is 24 (l) on p. 38:
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 Commissioners 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
They don’t really need to prove the conduct, the unbecoming is a slam dunk and the coverage has his name all over it. It’ll work similar to the NFL’s personal conduct policy, the vast majority of player’s suspended under that have never even faced charges, forget convictions, so there’s absolutely no proof they did anything wrong except generate a bunch of bad press, which “reflects negatively on the league” so they get suspended.
The only path Sterling has is to prove he was 100% not at fault, that all the coverage was lies and he said nothing untoward. To do that HE would need to bring the tape and establish it wasn’t him. He’s got nothing to stand on. His punishment is within the structure of the bylaws.
"Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association."
Then, there's this, at p. 46 or thereabouts:
"(c) Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 to be imposed by the Commissioner. The Member whose Owner, Officer, Manager, Coach or other employee has been so fined shall pay the amount of the fine should such person fail to do so within ten (10) days of its imposition.
(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association."
All the league has to do is prove that he made a statement or committed conduct prejudicial, and the commissioner has sole discretion to impose sanctions. The problem remains, if Sterling contests the decision, how does the league prove the statement or the conduct? It can't, under California law. Remember, Sterling expressly stated that he relied solely on the tape recordings.
If you are willing to write a brief for me, with citations to statutes, case law and the NBA rules, I will be happy to review it and see if you have changed my mind. I don't think you can do that, though, so we are arguing past one another. Have a good day.
You don’t get it and I can’t help you get it. Good luck to you.
I understood Barkley’s meaning, and it did not offend me that he said it. If 8 of 10 residents in a subdivision are black, you’d call it a black neighborhood. If the owner and most employees of a company are black, you’d call it a black business. No harm, no foul.
No, it's just the ol' "don't get mad, get even" thingy.