- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sterling Punishment: Lifetime Ban, 2.5M Fine, Urging Owners 2 Force Sale of team
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:08 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:08 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
quote:
I understand this, but you are also failing to understand that he must operate under whatever bylaws are agreed to under the "NBA constitution". If his actions violate those laws and if the NBA has consequences in place to reprimand him, then the NBA is fully within their authority to do so.
If the bylaws don't specify specifically that he can't be a closet racist or say racist remarks in the privacy of his own home, then they can't persecute him to the ultimate extent (forcing the sale).
public actions -> yeah its breaking the agreement
private actions -> really fine line we're dealing with. key words are going to be everything.
2
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:08 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Don't know if this has been posted but it sounds like the NBA has a procedure in place where owners agree to handle these matters through arbitration. Since that was most likely agreed upon by all owners, going to court won't do Sterling any good as they will just cite the agreement and send him back to arbitration where the NBA's arbitrator will act swiftly most likely.
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:10 pm to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
just really don't like this "force him to sell" strategy. If he had committed a crime or something, sure, but all he did was say something that pissed some people off.
It's about money man. Multiple sponsors are suspending their relationships with the Clippers, high profile players are voicing their disgusts (hell, even the Heat protest before their last game with pulling their jerseys off at center court), etc. I think if he remains the owner of the team, the Clippers organization will fail to exist in a few years.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:10 pm to CRAZY 4 LSU
quote:
Since that was most likely collectively bargained, going to court won't do Sterling any good as they will just cite the agreement and send him back to arbitration where the NBA's arbitrator will act swiftly most likely
That still doesn't circumvent anti trust laws
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:11 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Are you an owner of an NBA franchise? Are any of these hypothetical players also owners?
The players he is referring to aren't "hypothetical" they are the players... Why should the players be treated any different than the owners? If it is racist comments they are trying to crack down on then banning players for life would be the appropriate response.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:11 pm to htran90
quote:
If the bylaws don't specify specifically that he can't be a closet racist or say racist remarks in the privacy of his own home, then they can't persecute him to the ultimate extent (forcing the sale).
You're missing my point of the "moral clause", which I'm sure he has one or multiple clauses that states XYZ consequences if he brings harm to the NBA brand.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:11 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
I understand completely, but I don't know that we can protect Sterling from being a shitty owner.
It's going to be crazy to see how this plays out.
It's going to be crazy to see how this plays out.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:12 pm to Chad504boy
great job Adam
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:12 pm to htran90
quote:
If the bylaws don't specify specifically that he can't be a closet racist or say racist remarks in the privacy of his own home, then they can't persecute him to the ultimate extent (forcing the sale).
public actions -> yeah its breaking the agreement
private actions -> really fine line we're dealing with. key words are going to be everything.
I doubt they need to specify. It is probably something more like a loose "for the good of the game" type clause.
kind of like when Stern nixed Paul to the Lakers for "basketball reasons"
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:13 pm to Hammond Tiger Fan
First all the tapes can't be used, it is illegal to tape someone without them knowing and without their constant so if he sues the NBA has no case since they can not present the tapes.
That's understanding I have
That's understanding I have
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:13 pm to tduecen
quote:
First all the tapes can't be used, it is illegal to tape someone without them knowing and without their constant so if he sues the NBA has no case since they can not present the tapes.
That's understanding I have
OH EM GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeee
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:14 pm to Dr RC
quote:
What are you a Vulcan? Either their racist ways offend your beliefs or they don't.
huh? you're creating a false dichotomy
i define racism as judging a person based solely on his/her race. it's irrational and i do not support it
it has nothing to do with me being offended or any sort of emotional thinking. it's an irrational belief i don't support
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:15 pm to Chad504boy
Yes? is there something I am missing, it is illegal to tape someone without their consent.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:15 pm to tduecen
quote:
That's understanding I have
there is a difference between criminal and civil matters.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:15 pm to tduecen
quote:
First all the tapes can't be used, it is illegal to tape someone without them knowing and without their constant so if he sues the NBA has no case since they can not present the tapes.
That's understanding I have
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:16 pm to NawlinsTiger9
Banning and fine was all just a publicity stunt to appease the peasants. Reality is there is no precedence set for illegally recorded conversations with no consent from either party. Fine will be rescinded in court and the banning of someone for being a racist will be overturned by lawyers for violating his rights. How many murderers, rapists, pedophiles and re ist go to pro sports games every night?
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:16 pm to tduecen
quote:
, it is illegal to tape someone without their consent.
do u know he didn't know he was being taped for starters?
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:17 pm to GeauxPack81
quote:
If it is racist comments they are trying to crack down on then banning players for life would be the appropriate response.
I am not an NBA player and my company has a policy that no one (white, black, asian, etc) can say the n word...immediate termination if you say it, spell it, mouth it.
The funny thing is you can say other derogatory names about other races but not the n word. Cracker is perfectly acceptable.
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:18 pm to Chad504boy
Well did he know he was being taped or not?
LINK
quote:
California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.
If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/29/14 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 4/29/14 at 3:18 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
do u know he didn't know he was being taped for starters?
doesnt matter
the NBA didnt do the taping, and they didnt instruct the girl to tape Sterling either. once the tapes were released they are part of the public domain and would absolutely be admissible in a civil matter.
Page 35 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News