Bring out the black helicopters - who set D. Sterling up and why?

[Irondawg]

Dude is a prick and always has bee. But getting past everything the media is spending it's time on, he was clearly set up by his GF and someone else. But for what purpose?

A large part of me thinks Magic was involved here somehow since it was his picture that set the whole thing off and he wants to be a part owner of an NBA team. Or was this a pure act of vengeance by the gf for something else he did.

[starkvegasdawg]

Personally, I think the GF got tired of having to nail a 100 year old man that probably needed three viagra to just get it halfway up for her spending money and concocted some scheme to try and get paid off. Now whether Magic was behind it or not I have no idea. But one look at the GF and you know she isn't playing with a full deck. Roller skating wearing a welding mask with an entourage in tow tells me all I need to know about her. Kind of reminds me of Ricky Williams doing interviews while wearing a football helmet.

[EAVdog]

Personally, I think the GF got tired of having to nail a 100 year old man that probably needed three viagra to just get it halfway up for her spending money and concocted some scheme to try and get paid off. Now whether Magic was behind it or not I have no idea. But one look at the GF and you know she isn't playing with a full deck. Roller skating wearing a welding mask with an entourage in tow tells me all I need to know about her. Kind of reminds me of Ricky Williams doing interviews while wearing a football helmet.


Considering she was supposedly sleeping with Magic as well there may be some credence to the conspiracy. My guess is that some folks are just wanting to jump on the opportunity, i.e. Oprah/Magic et al...

Honestly though I'd believe just about anything from Hollywood. That is one nasty back stabbing scheming town.

[MrKotter]

Isn't she currently being sued by his company for embezzling?

[Johnson85]

Dude is a prick and always has bee. But getting past everything the media is spending it's time on, he was clearly set up by his GF and someone else. But for what purpose?

A large part of me thinks Magic was involved here somehow since it was his picture that set the whole thing off and he wants to be a part owner of an NBA team. Or was this a pure act of vengeance by the gf for something else he did.

She had all the incentive she needed because of the lawsuit against her and the potential for blackmail. The only weird thing is she ruined all her leverage and potentially exposed herself to criminal charges by releasing the tape publicly. She either did it for pure vengeance bc she's an idiot (my guess) or she confided in Magic and he orchestrated the public leak (fun to think about but I would assume he would not be dumb enough to do this because of the chance that the gold digger would roll on him if she was ever under oath).

[Count Istvan Teleky]

He was terrible. Refused to apologize. Refused to admit any blame. Went off on Magic.

Unfortunately, I see Sterling as being the first of what may be others that are removed from ownership for what they say. Obviously this guy is a kook, but the due process has to take place and it's being riun into the ground in the hurry to charge, try, and execute him.

Don't get me wrong. He is a jerk. However, what kind of precedent does this set? If someone can be removed from ownership for what they say, where does that leave the other owners? If they say something that is 'not correct' then can the NBA take their team too? Suppose the owner of the Orlando Magic said something in support do traditional marriage? Would he face the same fate?

I can easily see this headed that same direction. Sterling is an easy foil. He deserves no quarter but what about he next guy.?

[smootness]

He was terrible. Refused to apologize. Refused to admit any blame. Went off on Magic.

Unfortunately, I see Sterling as being the first of what may be others that are removed from ownership for what they say. Obviously this guy is a kook, but the due process has to take place and it's being riun into the ground in the hurry to charge, try, and execute him.

Don't get me wrong. He is a jerk. However, what kind of precedent does this set? If someone can be removed from ownership for what they say, where does that leave the other owners? If they say something that is 'not correct' then can the NBA take their team too?

If the other owners decide he's bad for business, then yes. These owners are franchise owners, they do have a boss, and that boss is the league. This is not the government taking a company away; this is a company taking a franchise away.

It would be similar if a Chick-fil-A franchise owner came out and said something publicly (I get Sterling didn't mean to say it publicly, but it was heard publicly regardless) that was deemed offensive to a certain group; CFA has the ability to remove that franchise owner. It's the exact same concept at play here.

If the NBA left Sterling in place, no one would sign with the Clippers, a lot of people would stop going to games, and the franchise would start being a drag on the entire league. Yes, they absolutely can keep that from happening.

[BeardoMSU]

If the other owners decide he's bad for business, then yes. These owners are franchise owners, they do have a boss, and that boss is the league. This is not the government taking a company away; this is a company taking a franchise away.

It would be similar if a Chick-fil-A franchise owner came out and said something publicly (I get Sterling didn't mean to say it publicly, but it was heard publicly regardless) that was deemed offensive to a certain group; CFA has the ability to remove that franchise owner. It's the exact same concept at play here.

If the NBA left Sterling in place, no one would sign with the Clippers, a lot of people would stop going to games, and the franchise would start being a drag on the entire league. Yes, they absolutely can keep that from happening.

Well said, smoot.

[scottycameron]

he was the most recent naacp lifetime achievement award winner, that could possibly make him some enemies that could want to get some dirt on him on tape. Just one possibility.

[BeastMan]

I thought Bill Mahr nailed it when he discussed this. Everyone got caught up in the freedom of speech angle but this wasn't about that. This was about the 4th amendment (privacy). Sterling isn't worth defending b/c he sucks but he was bugged in his own home. Hell, even police need a judge order to bug a criminal's house. Mahr said something to the effect that folks need to get over it. People aren't perfect and what you say in your home shouldn't have to be public ready on first take.

There are a lot of folks throwing a lot of daggers who wouldn't want to be secretly recorded in their own home.

[dawgs]

Owning a pro franchise is a privilege the rest of the league allows, not a right. You sign a contract with the league and if you are violating that contract and acting detrimentally to the league, you can be forced out.

As for the legality of her recording, she's not the cops and she's not using the recording in a criminal case. She's open to potential civil suits, but she's not open to criminal charges. Just because the evidence would be thrown out of a criminal court case for illegal wiretapping doesn't mean she is criminally guilty. Otherwise there would be lots of cops in jail for illegal wiretapping, but they aren't, the recording is merely tossed out, and other evidence must be used in court.

Sucks for him, but he said it, and it's out there now and hurting the nba brand, therefore the league must have some form of recourse to protect themselves. Simple because his gf recorded the conversation in a manner not compliant with federal and state laws doesn't mean it can't be used to justify action in any walk of life, it just can't be used as evidence in a criminal case (not sure how this will play in the sure to be civil case with the nba and sterling, as the recording is the basis of the action, but I'd guess they'd argue they were responsible for it going public and that once it went public, it was public knowledge and the means it was obtained doesn't matter for the purposes of hurting the business).

I promise that if you went on a rant like this, whether it was recorded or overheard by a client or someone who told a client, your ass would be fired. Immediately. How the client found out wouldn't matter to your boss/company. The 1st amendment protects you from censorship by the govt, not from your employer. If you think sterling is getting screwed, then go record yourself talking about how much you hate black people, have the client hear the recording, and see if you can use the 1st amendment as a shield to keep your ass from getting fired.

That said, I've managed not to go on a 10 min rant against minorities, even in private conversations, and I'd also gladly take a $1B return on a $12.5M investment made less than 30 years ago.

[hacker]

I thought Bill Mahr nailed it when he discussed this. Everyone got caught up in the freedom of speech angle but this wasn't about that. This was about the 4th amendment (privacy). Sterling isn't worth defending b/c he sucks but he was bugged in his own home. Hell, even police need a judge order to bug a criminal's house. Mahr said something to the effect that folks need to get over it. People aren't perfect and what you say in your home shouldn't have to be public ready on first take.

There are a lot of folks throwing a lot of daggers who wouldn't want to be secretly recorded in their own home.

The recording was illegal, but that's a totally separate issue. The government didn't record this, as far as I know, so it's not a 4th amendment issue. This is purely a business decision by the NBA. Regardless of how this came to light, it's out there now.

[smootness]

I thought Bill Mahr nailed it when he discussed this. Everyone got caught up in the freedom of speech angle but this wasn't about that. This was about the 4th amendment (privacy). Sterling isn't worth defending b/c he sucks but he was bugged in his own home. Hell, even police need a judge order to bug a criminal's house. Mahr said something to the effect that folks need to get over it. People aren't perfect and what you say in your home shouldn't have to be public ready on first take.

There are a lot of folks throwing a lot of daggers who wouldn't want to be secretly recorded in their own home.

If he wants to go after her and sue, he's free to do so. The laws differ on what can be recorded and when, I have no idea what the laws are like where this recording took place.

But either way, it still doesn't matter in this case. In a court, absolutely, it would almost assuredly be thrown out. But Sterling said those things, and people heard them. Regardless of how or why they heard them, they now know Sterling said those things, the business will suffer, and the other owners absolutely have the ability to kick him out because of that.

You are allowed to be a racist in your own home, just as you are allowed to be a racist in public. But if someone happens to hear you being a racist, you are not immune to any and all consequences just because you said it in your own home. Your wife can divorce you if she hears an illegally recorded conversation between you and your mistress, and if you own a franchise, they can kick you out if they hear an illegally recorded conversation of you being a racist.

If you are a racist at home and put on the mask of a non-racist in public, there might be consequences if someone finds out you're a racist at home.

[BeastMan]

The recording was illegal, but that's a totally separate issue. The government didn't record this, as far as I know, so it's not a 4th amendment issue. This is purely a business decision by the NBA. Regardless of how this came to light, it's out there now.

Mahr wasn't making a point to "is this legal?". He was making the point that there is no right to privacy anymore in this country, which I completely agree with. Every new power that is given to the gov't and enforcement agencies, the average citizens loses more freedom and privacy. I don't care who or for what purpose, no one should ever be secretly recorded in their own home period.

[BeastMan]

If you are a racist at home and put on the mask of a non-racist in public, there might be consequences if someone finds out you're a racist at home.

I completely agree with that but that isn't remotely close to the point that I agree with. I'm saying that privacy is important. What you do/say in your own home should be sacred. Every single person known to man has had conversations in his house that aren't fit for public consumption (gay marriage, abortion, racism, politics, or any other topic). No one is 100% PC in their own home 100% of the time. Most folks aren't to the extent of ignorance of Sterling. I'm not defending that.

[dawgs]

Mahr wasn't making a point to "is this legal?". He was making the point that there is no right to privacy anymore in this country, which I completely agree with. Every new power that is given to the gov't and enforcement agencies, the average citizens loses more freedom and privacy. I don't care who or for what purpose, no one should ever be secretly recorded in their own home period.

The government has nothing to do with this. 0. Zilch. Nada.

Once you open your mouth, you have no control over who the listener may or may not relay your words to. You can be pissed at the person and feel betrayed, but ultimately you said the words and you know there is a chance those words are going to be told to others. That doesn't absolve you from saying the words.

An expectation of privacy between 2 citizens is merely as strong as the trust between the 2 people not to pass along each other's comments outside the conversation.

I don't know why people can't grasp this difference.

[dawgs]

I completely agree with that but that isn't remotely close to the point that I agree with. I'm saying that privacy is important. What you do/say in your own home should be sacred. Every single person known to man has had conversations in his house that aren't fit for public consumption (gay marriage, abortion, racism, politics, or any other topic). No one is 100% PC in their own home 100% of the time. Most folks aren't to the extent of ignorance of Sterling. I'm not defending that.

But if you piss off your wife and she goes to your employer and clients and tells them your racist, bigoted views you spout at home, your ass is going to get fired. Sucks for you, but at this point you are costing your employer business. Govt has nothing to do with it.

[BeastMan]

But if you piss off your wife and she goes to your employer and clients and tells them your racist, bigoted views you spout at home, your ass is going to get fired. Sucks for you, but at this point you are costing your employer business. Govt has nothing to do with it.

I'm not making any point related to racism. Don't understand why you can't grasp that. If you were secretly recorded in your house, are you 100% PC 100% of the time?

[Irondawg]

I get what Beast is saying and this was a point I made about this creating a slippery slope. For example, the average NBA players doesn't have a high IQ and history has shown a large part of them are somewhat irresponsible for their money and personal time. Let's use Dwayne Wade as an example since he just went through a crazy divorce. What if he was recorded at home going off on women as a gender - just degraded them in a tirade? What happens if any athlete is recording saying he'd be uncomfortable with M. Sam or J. Collins as a teammate? What if a player goes off on Sterling recording but instead of referrring to him specifically refers to all rich white guys?

I agree with Smoot entirely on the franchise laws, but the larger issue is that people get their feelings hurt way too easily these days and organizations and media create unnecessary frenzies in a lot of cases and totally ignore others at their whim. This isn't a "defend Sterling" stance, but more of a "what's next" question. In this case the NBA owners are doing what they have to do given all the circumstances and media circus, etc.

[dawgs]

I'm not making any point related to racism. Don't understand why you can't grasp that. If you were secretly recorded in your house, are you 100% PC 100% of the time?

I'm not making a point about racism either, I'm just using it as the example. If you talked about bombing the White House in your home and it got out, you'd be fired too.

The point is that your extension of privacy in these situations essentially extends to your mouth. Once you open your mouth, the listener can legally tell whoever they want and it may have repercussions in your life. Obviously to use in a criminal case, there are wiretapping and evidence gathering laws that must be followed (being the prosecutor and cops are public employees), but outside of criminal cases, if you say something to someone else, there's always a chance they pass it along to others. Doesn't matter if you said it in your house, in your car, whispered into the ear of someone in a stadium full of people, in a restaurant, wherever. Your privacy is limited to the trust you have in the person/people on the listening end of things, and it's not a violation of your privacy if they tell others, it's a violation of your trust in them.

[dawgs]

I get what Beast is saying and this was a point I made about this creating a slippery slope. For example, the average NBA players doesn't have a high IQ and history has shown a large part of them are somewhat irresponsible for their money and personal time. Let's use Dwayne Wade as an example since he just went through a crazy divorce. What if he was recorded at home going off on women as a gender - just degraded them in a tirade? What happens if any athlete is recording saying he'd be uncomfortable with M. Sam or J. Collins as a teammate? What if a player goes off on Sterling recording but instead of referrring to him specifically refers to all rich white guys?

I agree with Smoot entirely on the franchise laws, but the larger issue is that people get their feelings hurt way too easily these days and organizations and media create unnecessary frenzies in a lot of cases and totally ignore others at their whim. This isn't a "defend Sterling" stance, but more of a "what's next" question. In this case the NBA owners are doing what they have to do given all the circumstances and media circus, etc.

Those bridges will be crossed if/when they come. But owners are going to be held to a higher standard since they are the boss of the team. If a player going on a anti-female rant was potentially going to cause boycotts and walk outs of players and fans, the league would take action with either a ban or a suspension. The point is that players legitimately were ready to walk off the court and refuse to play playoff games if the action wasn't taken. That's bad for business. The players may threaten to boycott playing for/against the clippers next season if the owners don't initiate the process of ousting sterling. That's bad for business. TV networks and sponsors may avoid the clippers and and NBA as a whole if no action is taken. That's bad for business. When you buy a FRANCHISE, you are intricately tied with every other franchise, so if you do things detrimental to the league, then action will be taken. If sterling owned his own construction company and made these comments, he'd just be running his own company into the ground. In this case, he's potentially running his and 29 other franchises all tied together into the ground. Think of it like a law firm, if a partner made private comments that came out and pissed off clients costing the firm business, the other partners are going to buy out the offending partner. Probably under the partnership contract that gives them that power when a partner acts detrimental to the firm. Again these are PRIVATE businesses that can act however they want, but people seem to be confusing them with right to privacy laws applied to govt entities. Apples and oranges people.

[dawgs]

Worth noting that the nba is a private conglomeration of privately owned franchises and not married to precedent. Case by case determinations will be made in accordance with the totality of the facts.

[BeastMan]

Good points dawgs. I think my angle coincides with my ability to recognize my imperfections and willingness to admit that I'm not 100% filtered for public consumption at all times. We live in a time where a Rosie O'donnell joke can get you attacked by LGBT groups. I'm not defending Sterling, I'm just not a fan imperfect people (which we all are) judging other imperfect people.

[smootness]

Good points dawgs. I think my angle coincides with my ability to recognize my imperfections and willingness to admit that I'm not 100% filtered for public consumption at all times. We live in a time where a Rosie O'donnell joke can get you attacked by LGBT groups. I'm not defending Sterling, I'm just not a fan imperfect people (which we all are) judging other imperfect people.

I agree with you to an extent, I definitely dislike the fact that what a lot of people feel is fine when amongst friends becomes unacceptable in public - there shouldn't be a difference in standard.

But 2 points: 1) Because there is outrage expressed over certain sentiments, a business is well within their rights to make a decision in the best economic interest of the organization. Regardless of how we feel about those crucifying someone for saying something, the fact is, it will happen and they have to protect the business. Retaining Donald Sterling as an owner is just not in any way viable for the NBA.

And 2) You have to realize there is quite a difference between a player making misogynistic comments, or those seen as intolerant of homosexuals, and an owner making racist comments toward the race that 80%+ of his team and the league as a whole is made up of. Would a player be let go if a secret recording was made of him making a joke about gays? I doubt it, though he would probably be punished in some nominal way.

[Irondawg]

No, I get you dawgs and agree with everything you stated. The whole intent of the thread was speculation on how it was all set up and what they were hoping to benefit.

Nobody has mentioned David Stern yet for fun.

[dawgs]

No, I get you dawgs and agree with everything you stated. The whole intent of the thread was speculation on how it was all set up and what they were hoping to benefit.

Nobody has mentioned David Stern yet for fun.

30 year old gold digging mistress looking to blackmail him or get a big payday from the gossip sites. Probably after he's spent years degrading her (she's half black, so I can't imagine he's never said anything shitty to her over the years). I just think she got tired of his bullshit and wanted to make money off him knowing it would be easy to catch him in a racist rant.

[Dawgcentral]

30 year old gold digging mistress looking to blackmail him or get a big payday from the gossip sites. Probably after he's spent years degrading her (she's half black, so I can't imagine he's never said anything shitty to her over the years). I just think she got tired of his bullshit and wanted to make money off him knowing it would be easy to catch him in a racist rant.

Sounds like the Mel Gibson scenario to me. Also remember Alec Baldwin going off on a cell phone rant which his daughter recorded. Baldwin is still working. Wonder why?

[dawgs]

Sounds like the Mel Gibson scenario to me. Also remember Alec Baldwin going off on a cell phone rant which his daughter recorded. Baldwin is still working. Wonder why?

Because viewers didn't boycott his show or movies costing those writing his paycheck profits?

[Quaoarsking]

Remember, if this had been Sterling's first offense, he would have gotten through it and still have the team (much like Riley Cooper didn't have much long-term fallout from his racial rant). He didn't lose his team because he said one bad paragraph inside his home -- he lost it in the culmination of a lifetime of ugly incidents.

[Political Hack]

there's an easy solution here... Just stop being a racist. Problem solved.

[dawgs]

there's an easy solution here... Just stop being a racist. Problem solved.

Ha on Louie the other night, part of his stand-up segment was something like "how do you know when you love someone? When you let them know your inner racism". He went on a little bit from there, but it seems appropriate here.

[Irondawg]

Well remember the NFL tried to ban slurs on the field and the players were not very supportive of it. Two different leagues, but same general audience.

Interesting the reactions when you stack the two against each other. People keep wanting to have parts of it both ways.

[Bothrops]

She is a typical Hollywood money whore that was probably doing some of the players, and he's an old emasculated shriveled up bag.

[fishwater99]

But if you piss off your wife and she goes to your employer and clients and tells them your racist, bigoted views you spout at home, your ass is going to get fired. Sucks for you, but at this point you are costing your employer business. Govt has nothing to do with it.

It depends on what state you live in and how strong their employment laws are. In MS, yes, you could be fired. Each state is different.

[dawgs]

It depends on what state you live in and how strong their employment laws are. In MS, yes, you could be fired. Each state is different.

Find me a state that wouldn't allow an employer to fire you for costing them business.

Edit: I realize I didn't say costing your employer business in that particular post, but I think it's VERY obvious that for the context of this discussion and my posts over and over and over referencing the loss of business AND by including the part about the wife telling clients, that the loss of business was implicit.

[dawgs]

Well remember the NFL tried to ban slurs on the field and the players were not very supportive of it. Two different leagues, but same general audience.

Interesting the reactions when you stack the two against each other. People keep wanting to have parts of it both ways.

I think saying something in the heat of the moment on the field while in a highly emotionally state when shouldt talking and name calling is and always has been the norm isn't really anything close to going on a 10 minute racist rant because your gf took a pic with a world famous black guy and posted it online and a history of racist comments, rumors, and actions to go along with it.

Of course I don't just draw lines in the sand and make everything black or white. I try to look at all the facts and consider the entirety of the situation.

[fishwater99]

Some states have laws that are very favorable for the employee, unlike Mississippi.

Civil Servants that work for the Federal Government are almost impossible to fire.

In 2012, just 0.4 percent of civilian employees were fired.

"Federal employees' job security is so great that workers in many agencies are more likely to die of natural causes than get laid off or fired," reported USA Today after a 2011 study of federal employment statistics.

[Dawg61]

I think whatever you say in your home should remain private and therefore not punishable. It's kinda like public drunkedness. Drink as much as you like in your own home and get as sloppy as you please but step out in public and you'll get public drunk charges. Well say whatever the fuk you want in your own damn home you worked your ass off to get but as soon as you step in public you can be held responsible for your words. If the law ain't that way right now it should be and I'll vote for the guy that tries to make it that way. There should be a place in this world for each and every person to say out loud whatever the fuk they want and that place should be your home. $.02