Don Sterling...

[rvg]

Yup, banz0red (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27214758) for life.

Next step: instituting punishments for thought crimes and sense offenses.


P.S. America, wtf have you done to yourself?

[Beskar]

Because we should really tolerate racism.

[Papewaio]

I thought corporations always got it right!

[The Lurker Below]

Yup, banz0red (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27214758) for life.

Next step: instituting punishments for thought crimes and sense offenses.


P.S. America, wtf have you done to yourself?

hey! at least in America old farts get hot girlfriends!

re: the ban and fine - he and the NBA are private institutions and can regulate themselves as they see fit.

[Strike For The South]

So his cabal decided to kick him out

YOUR FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS DO NOT PROTECT YOUR EMPLOYMENT OR ASSOCIATION

THIS IS A VERY A SIMPLE CONCEPT

PLEASE INTERNALIZE IT

[Rhyfelwyr]

So his cabal decided to kick him out

YOUR FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS DO NOT PROTECT YOUR EMPLOYMENT OR ASSOCIATION

THIS IS A VERY A SIMPLE CONCEPT

PLEASE INTERNALIZE IT

Except nobody here is raging against the government - what is happening here is a social trend where people who do not hold to mainstream views are being excluded from society.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to shed any tears for this Sterling fellow because he is obviously a prat and he has it good enough anyway. In this particular case I actually support the measures taken by the NBA because it is a sporting organisation and Mr. Sterling is not an employer or employee.

But aside from the argument on legal rights, I do think that this tendency to completely demonise and marginalise people for holding to beliefs that were pretty much the norm well within people's lifetimes is pretty stupid.

[drone]

Yeah, he's really getting punished. Paid $12.5 million for the team in '81, mismanaged them as league's laughingstock franchise for 30 years, and now will be "forced" to sell for close to $1 billion. I'm sure he'll manage somehow...

[Ice]

Because we should really tolerate racism.

Yes - you must be tolerant of racism if you disagree with the NBA's handling and the media's coverage of this event :laugh4:

[Kadagar_AV]

Because we should really tolerate racism.

Yes, you really should.

Democracy, you know.

You might not support their view, but you should be willing to die for their right to state it. You propose a more updated version of democracy? If so, why?

[Papewaio]

A lot of appeals to democracy are inherently anti racist:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

[rvg]

The day when a man cannot say whatever the hell he wants in the privacy of his own goddamn bedroom is indeed a sad day. Not for him, he's loaded, he won't care either way. For the rest of us. The conformity nazis have struck again, yet the sheep are clamoring for more.

Gah.

[Kadagar_AV]

A lot of appeals to democracy are inherently anti racist:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

All men created equal: Sure.

All men have the same intellectual capacity: A big no-no.

All men have the same physical capacity: A big no-no.

I think they meant it in a methodological way - no? I for one am not on par with, say, Zlatan, nor Messi or Ronaldo - when it comes to soccer.


What I mean with that is that physically handicapped children obviously have the same rights to reach their physical limits when, say, going to school and having PE class...

Retarded children don't have the same rights to go for A-grades (in fact it would be horrible to expect it of them, or judge them by it!!). They DO however still have the right to reach THEIR full capacity, just like any other child.

It is not saying that anyone is as good as any other. They just have the right to reach THEIR limit, they are not however in their right to get an Olympic medal. Nor the Nobel Prize.


As to how the dice are rolled in what sub groups of humanitys DNA code... It's either the will of some God, if you are into that.

Alternatively a matter of science.

Democracy should not shut science up - for the well being of you know... Society?

*not to mention science at large*

[Greyblades]

The day when a man cannot say whatever the hell he wants in the privacy of his own goddamn bedroom is indeed a sad day. Not for him, he's loaded, he won't care either way. For the rest of us. The conformity nazis have struck again, yet the sheep are clamoring for more.
Yes the privacy of his goddamn bedroom, while on the phone to another person.

Personally I would be more concerned exactly how the audio was recorded. If it was the person on the other end who recorded it, for whatever end, then Sterling's an idiot witha bad sense of who to trust. If his phone line was being tapped by someone other than the two people, that's illegal and an invasion of privacy. Either way Sterling's still an idiot.

[Papewaio]

Equal rights =/= equal outcome

Racism is not a right, nor is it protected by democratic ideals. It is thoroughly disputed with the ideas that 1 person 1 vote, right to pursue happiness (not pleasure), that the rights are regardless of race or creed.

So an appeal to democracy to protect the rights of a bigot are not there. Freedom of speech is not freedom of responsibility.

[Kadagar_AV]

Equal rights =/= equal outcome

Racism is not a right, nor is it protected by democratic ideals. It is thoroughly disputed with the ideas that 1 person 1 vote, right to pursue happiness (not pleasure), that the rights are regardless of race or creed.

So an appeal to democracy to protect the rights of a bigot are not there. Freedom of speech is not freedom of responsibility.

So if science deem, say, whites to be sub-par compared to blacks when it comes to running... The whites should have an equal opportunity to get running medals?


As to the bolded part... Can one be racist if one can show that black people in fact seem to run faster compared to whites? I don't see the "responsibility" problem there?

Is it OK to be racist, as long as you point to scientific data?

For me, personally, it would be the utmost logical brain leap to think the human races have developed identically, given evolution and the different conditions we have had.

Just like we changed colour of skin, logic dictates that our brains might not exactly have gone in the identical same direction, no?

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/Y7mZiku.jpg

In another racist incident involving football (or soccer to Americans).
https://i.imgur.com/cEPDFXC.jpg

[Beskar]

Just like we changed colour of skin

Technically that is not true.

You might have not realised this, but 'white' people are not white (Albino-ism kind of is due to lack of melanin, but thats different and affects 'black' people too). When we go in contact with the sun, the body produces more melanin which is already existing, which makes us darker. Due to being resident in a far more sunnier place, peoples skin contain far more melanin than a place with a lot less sun. There is a slight gene variation on the initial concentrations.

In terms of genetic variation, the difference is a joke. The only real difference is in the mind of people socially programmed as racists.

Edit: On another note, according to some comments in thread, this person (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27234345) shouldn't exist.

[Husar]

you should be willing to die for their right to state it

What if I'm not?

[Papewaio]

So if science deem, say, whites to be sub-par compared to blacks when it comes to running... The whites should have an equal opportunity to get running medals?

I started off with equal opportunity does not equal outcome. White guy can compete but it does not mean he gets the same outcome. And as far as an appeal to democracy is concerned the number of votes you get to use is irrespective of race or speed.



As to the bolded part... Can one be racist if one can show that black people in fact seem to run faster compared to whites? I don't see the "responsibility" problem there?

Is it OK to be racist, as long as you point to scientific data?

For me, personally, it would be the utmost logical brain leap to think the human races have developed identically, given evolution and the different conditions we have had.

Just like we changed colour of skin, logic dictates that our brains might not exactly have gone in the identical same direction, no?

You do realize that the variation between groups is less then variation within most race groups (massive inbreeding can skew this see royalty and various inbred religious groups).

Also the largest variation on the gene level is men vs women. So as a group men are more closely related to each other than a woman of the same race. Think about it. Do you think we should be able to curtail the rights of men or women based on their chromosomes?

[Kadagar_AV]

I started off with equal opportunity does not equal outcome. White guy can compete but it does not mean he gets the same outcome. And as far as an appeal to democracy is concerned the number of votes you get to use is irrespective of race or speed.



You do realize that the variation between groups is less then variation within most race groups (massive inbreeding can skew this see royalty and various inbred religious groups).

Also the largest variation on the gene level is men vs women. So as a group men are more closely related to each other than a woman of the same race. Think about it. Do you think we should be able to curtail the rights of men or women based on their chromosomes?

Sorry, it's early AM and I am off to bed.

1. Love the images with the bananas :)

2. Speaking of bananas, love the comparison with females vs men... Women are from Venus...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don Sterling had every right to make those offensive comments towards that woman. She also had every right to make public the demeaning and insulting things he was saying about her friends. The NBA, as an organization that has always had a heavy hand in promoting an end to racism, had every right to fire his ignorant behind. Where's the problem? NBA Team owners aren't really owners in the sense that European football clubs are owned. They are more like franchise managers, operating within a very specific over-arching framework. Nothing to see here, move along. Ignorant racist gets his comeuppance, big deal.

:shrug:

NO, THIS IS ABOUT THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF MONEY RIDING ON THE CLIPPERS THIS YEAR!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hoping for a Blazers win myself, but I do like the Clippers. It makes me happy to see the Lakers upstaged. ~:smoking:

It makes me mad, I actually hate the Clippers and wish they would leave so LA could move in a football team in their place.

[a completely inoffensive name]

And now in my serious post, I will say that the tape itself was produce in a sleazy fashion and that no one should be forced to give up their property for their private opinions. Him being banned is completely justified though.

[Strike For The South]

He is being punished by the group he signed a contract with

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE HATE CAPITALISM

How some of you remember to breathe remains truly astonishing to me

[Sarmatian]

If I'm reading it right, it is legal in America to tape (and release publicly) phone conversations you're involved in?

[HoreTore]

The day when a man cannot say whatever the hell he wants in the privacy of his own goddamn bedroom is indeed a sad day. Not for him, he's loaded, he won't care either way. For the rest of us. The conformity nazis have struck again, yet the sheep are clamoring for more.

Gah.

If I call my boss a whore, and someone from work hears me, I can expect to get fired no matter where it was said.

I can't see how a racist tirade should be any different.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if our words don't have consequences. That someone wants to be able to say whatever they want without any consequences is just proof of them being crybabies.

[Sarmatian]

That varies, and generally its not. However, this isn't a legal issue. This is an internal NBA issue, and they enforce from within. They made the determination that the evidence was valid and used it to ban him from the game, and there will be an owners' vote to determine whether or not he is forced to "sell" the team. The law never actually enters into it at all. This is corporate justice, which makes the right wing hate all the more funny.

In Europe, the sports association levies fines and issues bans, if needed, but a team still has the option of taking it to the courts. A fine and a ban are business as usual in these cases but forcing him to sell his property is a completely different issue.

[Sigurd]

Technically that is not true.

You might have not realised this, but 'white' people are not white (Albino-ism kind of is due to lack of melanin, but thats different and affects 'black' people too). When we go in contact with the sun, the body produces more melanin which is already existing, which makes us darker. Due to being resident in a far more sunnier place, peoples skin contain far more melanin than a place with a lot less sun. There is a slight gene variation on the initial concentrations.

In terms of genetic variation, the difference is a joke. The only real difference is in the mind of people socially programmed as racists.
Apparently we Euro-whiners got our skin from the Neanderthals. I guess the first Africans in Europe found the light skinned Neanderthals sexy.

[Sir Moody]

In Europe, the sports association levies fines and issues bans, if needed, but a team still has the option of taking it to the courts. A fine and a ban are business as usual in these cases but forcing him to sell his property is a completely different issue.

not entirely true - I know football owners have to pass a "test" of sorts before they can buy a club in the UK and they cannot change the name of said club without approval from the league - I wouldn't be surprised to find out FIFA also can force an owner to sell - they just haven't used said claus yet...

[HoreTore]

not entirely true - I know football owners have to pass a "test" of sorts before they can buy a club in the UK and they cannot change the name of said club without approval from the league - I wouldn't be surprised to find out FIFA also can force an owner to sell - they just haven't used said claus yet...

Hull City Tigers.

Cardiff City "Bluebirds".

MK Bloody Dons.

[Sir Moody]

Hull City Tigers.

Cardiff City "Bluebirds".

MK Bloody Dons.

Officially the Hull City Tigers are "Hull City AFC" - their application to change their name was denied by the FA - the Tigers is merely a nickname right now

the same is true of Cardiff - the Bluebirds is merely a nickname they are officially Cardiff City FC

I know next to nothing about the MK Dons however a quick search shows they are officially Milton Keynes Dons FC

[HoreTore]

Officially the Hull City Tigers are "Hull City AFC" - their application to change their name was denied by the FA - the Tigers is merely a nickname right now

the same is true of Cardiff - the Bluebirds is merely a nickname they are officially Cardiff City FC

I know next to nothing about the MK Dons however a quick search shows they are officially Milton Keynes Dons FC

Listen to the fan chants next time you watch Hull play ~;)

As for Cardiff, I referred to the change of colour, not of name. They are now nicknamed the bluebirds, and they play in red...

Wimbledon relocating and switching to MK Dons will take far too much time to write up...

[Ironside]

Yes, you really should.

Democracy, you know.

You might not support their view, but you should be willing to die for their right to state it. You propose a more updated version of democracy? If so, why?

He doesn't state something, he's imposing it on others. It's a classic "freedom to oppress", to claim freedom of speech. Excluding the racism, he's basically doing the abusive husband thing ("I don't want you to see those friends anymore"). That's usually private, but it's not taken kindly normally.


Funny, but not as funny as Cliven Bundy's racist tirade. Old white racists are really living it up this month.

In his case, I think he even sees himself as a good guy.

It doesn't require that much. First, your position in life is always depending on yourself and your attitude. So blacks having it hard is because of a an evil loser attitude that's been spread around. Second, slavery is like forced working for housing and food and people do that all the time and the work is about the same as farmers has been doing so it's not extremely hard. Give them something to do and that loser attitude will disappear and things will be better.

Eat those lies and it's basically a form of welfare.

[Husar]

In Europe, the sports association levies fines and issues bans, if needed, but a team still has the option of taking it to the courts. A fine and a ban are business as usual in these cases but forcing him to sell his property is a completely different issue.

Maybe the negroes in the team do not want to be his property anymore? :creep:

[HoreTore]

In Europe, the sports association levies fines and issues bans, if needed, but a team still has the option of taking it to the courts. A fine and a ban are business as usual in these cases but forcing him to sell his property is a completely different issue.

UEFA decisions are final, and not subject to court rulings. The same is true of the FA's I know about.

You can appeal a decision, but you do so to the FA's appeal court. Their decision is final.

[drone]

If I'm reading it right, it is legal in America to tape (and release publicly) phone conversations you're involved in?

Depends on the state's wiretap laws. Some states are 1-party consent (only one person in the conversation needs to consent to the recording), others all-party (everyone must consent). California is an all-party state, so unless he consented through some strange mistress contract they had, the recording was illegal.

Sign of the upcoming apocalypse: the Bullets have a pretty good chance to get to the Eastern Conference finals.

[Sarmatian]

UEFA decisions are final, and not subject to court rulings. The same is true of the FA's I know about.

You can appeal a decision, but you do so to the FA's appeal court. Their decision is final.

Hmm, I don't think you're right. I remember this season (or was it a season before) there was UEFA decision not to allow a Turkish team to compete in CL, Besiktas maybe, I'm not sure. Anyway, they took it to a court which overruled UEFA decision.

I'll look it up.


EDIT: Found it. Fenerbahce and Besiktas were banned (http://www.dw.de/uefa-bans-turkish-clubs-fenerbahce-and-besiktas/a-16908146) from Europe in June 2013 by UEFA. They appealed to Court of Arbitration for Sport, which overruled (http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1501329/fenerbahce-claim-champions-league-suspended?cc=5739) UEFA's decision and lifted the ban, at least for Fener

[HoreTore]

Hmm, I don't think you're right. I remember this season (or was it a season before) there was UEFA decision not to allow a Turkish team to compete in CL, Besiktas maybe, I'm not sure. Anyway, they took it to a court which overruled UEFA decision.

I'll look it up.


EDIT: Found it. Fenerbahce and Besiktas were banned (http://www.dw.de/uefa-bans-turkish-clubs-fenerbahce-and-besiktas/a-16908146) from Europe in June 2013 by UEFA. They appealed to Court of Arbitration for Sport, which overruled (http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1501329/fenerbahce-claim-champions-league-suspended?cc=5739) UEFA's decision and lifted the ban, at least for Fener

I'll bold the relevant part:


UEFA decisions are final, and not subject to court rulings. The same is true of the FA's I know about.

You can appeal a decision, but you do so to the FA's appeal court. Their decision is final.

If it's a UEFA decision, you appeal to UEFA's appeal court.

[Sarmatian]

I'll bold the relevant part:



If it's a UEFA decision, you appeal to UEFA's appeal court.

But CAS and UEFA are separate entities, and, at least according to wiki, you can appeal a CAS decision to Supreme Federal Court of Switzerland.

[HoreTore]

But CAS and UEFA are separate entities, and, at least according to wiki, you can appeal a CAS decision to Supreme Federal Court of Switzerland.

CAS is a joint venture for many sports associations, created by the Olympic committee. Most of what they handle are drugs, but they occasionally do other cases(like Fenerbache).

The chances of overturning a CAS ruling is comparable to finding extraterrestrial life. The only involvement of national courts in CAS dealings is when the guilty party has tried to challenge the jurisdiction of CAS. This has not been successful.

[Sarmatian]

CAS is a joint venture for many sports associations, created by the Olympic committee. Most of what they handle are drugs, but they occasionally do other cases(like Fenerbache).

The chances of overturning a CAS ruling is comparable to finding extraterrestrial life. The only involvement of national courts in CAS dealings is when the guilty party has tried to challenge the jurisdiction of CAS. This has not been successful.

Still, it proves that UEFA decisions aren't final as you've said, you can take your case to a court that's outside UEFA, and afterwards, you can appeal to a civilian court. So, I'm right and you're wrong. Repent now and I won't make too many jokes about your total lack of understanding of the subject.


Its really not his property is the point. NBA "owners" are more like managers, and the NBA as a whole remains the most powerful controlling interest in the team regardless of which old white dude is currently profiting from ticket sales. Hell, they even share a stadium with the Lakers. :shrug: Baseball is the only major American sport where teams are owned in the true sense, and even then its a league-first mentality on most issues.

If you know of an online source that delves deeper into the subject, I'd like to read more about it.

[HoreTore]

Still, it proves that UEFA decisions aren't final as you've said, you can take your case to a court that's outside UEFA, and afterwards, you can appeal to a civilian court. So, I'm right and you're wrong. Repent now and I won't make too many jokes about your total lack of understanding of the subject.

The court is UEFA's court for all intents and purposes, it's just that it's shared with other sports organizations. It's artificially separated from the IOC, but that doesn't make them more independent than the FA court(which is also 'independent' and occasionally overrules the FA).

The opportunity of a civilian court to overrule CAS is non-existent in practice, unless the CAS has bungled into areas under the jurisdiction of said civilian court. Like if they made a guilty verdict in the blade runner case, for example...


And I'll never repent to a self-proclaimed nazi.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

SO far, I am with Strike on this one.


The league commissioner has the right to fine him for statements that reflect poorly on the NBA and to ban him from NBA events and activities. This is all part of the ownership agreement contract he signed. Additionally, there is a clause that allows for the forcible sale of the team against Sterling's wishes provided that 3/4 of the other team owners agree to such a sale being forced. Again, all part of the contract of ownership he signed.

If you don't want to abide by those rules of ownership, create your own league....it has been done before.

What Sterling did is more or less akin to a homeowner falling afoul of her homeowner association and having the home sold against her wishes to pay for outstanding fines and judgments. If you think such things are anathema (and many do) then DO NOT SIGN THE CONTRACT.


That having been said there are other questions.

Why did the NBA let him buy a team? It is not as though this fellow had a reputation for Pollyanna behavior -- especially as regards race relations -- prior to owning the Clippers. It does not speak well of the cadre of owners, now does it? I have heard that there are behaviors that whores will refuse even if offered a bonus...perhaps no such scruples exist among the NBA owners group....

Why is the NBA letting their dog be wagged by such a clear set-up job? Or were some of them complicit in it? The chica at the center of the controversy seems to have an interesting network of connections...

[HoreTore]

If you don't want to abide by those rules of ownership, create your own league....it has been done before.

I've got just the league for him. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-American_Basketball_Alliance_%282010%29)

[PROVOST]

LOL @ the appeal to "democracy" - the Greek version with the slaves? Or one of the other iterations where there's lip service given to it but the true power always rests with a select few?

USA is not a Democracy,it's a Republic.

As for this old white fool - he by owning a team has agreed to abide by and be held to the code of conduct the NBA have in place,as do most all sporting codes and other associations.

So his "rights" he allowed to be denigrated when he wanted to make the $$ and be in the NBA as an owner.

[drone]

Why is the NBA letting their dog be wagged by such a clear set-up job? Or were some of them complicit in it? The chica at the center of the controversy seems to have an interesting network of connections...

Apparently Sterling did know he was being recorded (all of their conversations were archived). She is being sued by his wife since the sugar-daddy money he gave her came from funds that weren't strictly his to do whatever he wanted with. She could have released the tape, or someone in the courthouse might have leaked it if it was part of the lawsuit evidence. TMZ probably has more spies in the LA courthouse than Scientology.

[TinCow]

Its really not his property is the point. NBA "owners" are more like managers, and the NBA as a whole remains the most powerful controlling interest in the team regardless of which old white dude is currently profiting from ticket sales. Hell, they even share a stadium with the Lakers. :shrug: Baseball is the only major American sport where teams are owned in the true sense, and even then its a league-first mentality on most issues.

Yup. And MLB did the same exact thing a long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott

You can be as much of a racist as you want, but once your bigotry starts impacting the profits of your partners you've got to answer to the Capitalism Justice League. Form of a contractual obligation!

Pro-tip: If you want to be able to say whatever you want without repercussions to your business, don't enter into a business that requires you to sign a contract giving other people the power to force you out of the business if you misbehave.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I still suspect it was a put up job -- not that this guy wasn't a debacle waiting to happen, he most certainly was. It may even have been morally correct to set him up for a fall and remove the excresence, but that is another question.

[Papewaio]

The court is UEFA's court for all intents and purposes, it's just that it's shared with other sports organizations. It's artificially separated from the IOC, but that doesn't make them more independent than the FA court(which is also 'independent' and occasionally overrules the FA).

The opportunity of a civilian court to overrule CAS is non-existent in practice, unless the CAS has bungled into areas under the jurisdiction of said civilian court. Like if they made a guilty verdict in the blade runner case, for example...


Are you stating that the UEFA is above the sovereignty of nations and their justice system?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I understand that everything that is happening to Sterling is by the book since he did sign the contract with the NBA allowing them to take away his team if they choose. I just think there is more to be said about whether or not contracts that dictate property rights based on....reputation are 1. smart and 2. easily abused and 3. moral.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I doubt you could get 3/4 of the owners to agree to a sale on the prop 8 issue -- but I take your point.

[HoreTore]

Are you stating that the UEFA is above the sovereignty of nations and their justice system?

I'm saying that UEFA is outside it.

[TinCow]

I'm not even sure you can get 3/4 of the owners to vote to make this guy sell. Certainly not without the pressure put on the NBA by the players, the public, and the media--those are the forces driving this whole thing, though it is certainly a reaction to Sterling's dumb comments. If they vote to expel this guy, my suspicion is that it will be a short amount of time before the next big revelation, fanning the flames of public opinion and forcing the issue on other people with other reactionary views. These old white dudes aren't hard to find dirt on.

The players are the key factor in this situation and, in the end, what has driven all that has happened and all that will happen. Three-quarters of the players in the NBA come from the group that Sterling chose to express his bigotry about. Apparently both the Clippers and the Warriors would have boycotted their playoff game if they had been dissatisfied with the NBA's response. It seems very likely that the rest of the league would have followed suit shortly thereafter. A total shutdown of the NBA during the playoffs would have had massive financial repercussions for everyone involved. The players are very, very powerful when they choose to act in unison.

I think the key difference between this situation and a lot of others is simply that the racial makeup of the NBA is such that the players were almost guaranteed to be willing to go to extreme measures to get what they wanted. I don't think the same could be said for gay rights issues, or indeed for many other controversial topics. The simple fact is that this guy chose to speak out about a form of bigotry that even the most politically conservative people in the country find outright abhorrent... and he did it in an industry that absolutely depends on the support of the people he was expressing bigotry towards. In short, this is a perfect storm that is not likely to repeat even with other variations on the same theme.

[Papewaio]

I'm saying that UEFA is outside it.

I think you will find that if push comes to shove a national court can overrule a UEFA decision.

[HoreTore]

I think you will find that if push comes to shove a national court can overrule a UEFA decision.

Only to the extent that a court can demand company A to buy supplies from company B.

[Papewaio]

How would UEFA legally enforce any rulings?

Contracts, taxes, OH&S etc

[HoreTore]

How would UEFA legally enforce any rulings?

Contracts, taxes, OH&S etc

By refusing to allow teams and/or players to play in their leagues. A court cannot order them to let teams or players play in a league any more than a court can order a company to buy stuff from another company.

[Papewaio]

I think you will find that is false. If a league bans the players based on race I bet the courts could force a change.

[HoreTore]

I think you will find that is false. If a league bans the players based on race I bet the courts could force a change.

....but they don't, so your point is moot.

[Sarmatian]

....but they don't, so your point is moot.

It's not moot.

If there are no murders in a community for some time, would we say police there wouldn't investigate murders, or a court wouldn't prosecute the murderers?

UEFA (and other sport organization) rules are in accordance with civilian legislation, so there is rarely, if ever, need for civilian courts to intervene, but if they did, UEFA, FIFA and every other sport organization would have to obey that.

[HoreTore]

It's not moot.

If there are no murders in a community for some time, would we say police there wouldn't investigate murders, or a court wouldn't prosecute the murderers?

UEFA (and other sport organization) rules are in accordance with civilian legislation, so there is rarely, if ever, need for civilian courts to intervene, but if they did, UEFA, FIFA and every other sport organization would have to obey that.

....And this is a thread about issues in accordance with civilian law.

So, moot.

Bosman retired a long, long time ago.

[Major Robert Dump]

the court CAN make a company buy something from another company

[ReluctantSamurai]

A less obvious issue is why the man was allowed to buy an NBA franchise in the first place given his underlying racist beliefs, and why nothing was done about him long before. How many more owners either share or tolerate Sterling's views but weren't foolish enough to be so blatant about it would be interesting to know. The conversations amongst owner gatherings, including Sterling, on the golf course or in a cocktail lounge would be a priceless commodity to know.

In any event, Sterling being "dis-enfranchised" is simply a business decision. His previous antics only cost Sterling his own money. But he crossed the line and that action had the potential to cost the other owners money. And that simply could not be tolerated. Sports owners are a very exclusive group who feel they can say or do anything they wish. But rock the boat and you will find that those you once considered friends or business partners will turn on you like a pack of dogs after wounded prey.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I listened to the tape...he says NOTHING racist. It almost seems like she's trying to make it sound like that, but he he's baffled when she acts like she thinks he's racist, like when she asks him if he wants her to "remove the skin color out of my skin", you can hear it in his voice.

She's his trophy mistress apparently, and people he knows look down on her for going about publicly with black men and posting pictures with them on instagram, and they give him a hard time about it. He's more like a victim of prejudice in this regard. "I'm living in a culture, and I have to live in this culture", "Dennis made that comment", etc. "I want you to love them--privately. In your whole life, everyday you can be with them. Every single day of your life...but why publicize it on the Instragram and why bring it to my games?" he says. People he knows see that stuff and give him a hard time of it, so he asks her not to "broadcast". After all the point of a trophy mistress is to make you look good to your rich buddies, not get you made fun of. His motivation here is basically the same as all the sponsors pulling away from the clippers--simple concern for what people think.

Compare with what Spike Lee said:

http://books.google.com/books?id=neaB76iFhCEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=spike+lee+interracial+couples&source=bl&ots=u-wKB6LNwH&sig=9desiU4pE1GIiRu4BrJ1dBEUFfY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k1lsU_34JYSqyATqhoKYDw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=spike%20lee%20interracial%20couples&f=false

https://i58.tinypic.com/m7rsly.jpg

Nothing I would make a fuss over, but it's much closer to being against interracial relationships than anything sterling said.



So basically, in our country someone could call someone up, try to get them to say things that can be used against them, and even if they don't really succeed they can leak the tape and it will be spread all over by an enthusiastic media and people who don't pay attention or listen carefully. That's the real story, stuff about terrible things sterling has done, or whether he's pathetic or disgusting, or whether the nba is a business and he has a contract etc is all irrelevant. These particular tapes do not have on them what every news article I read said they did. Most of the time they felt no need to provide evidence and didn't even quote him.

I guess sports team owners aren't that important, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this kind of things starts being a much more regular part of presidential campaigns. I remember a few instances from the last campaign. As it stands, the people willing to make these kinds of recordings and market them with misleading headlines have a hugely disproportionate and corrupt amount of influence on elections. If the american people can't learn resist the temptation to jump right into sanctimonious posturing whenever a headline and some out of context quotes fits in with their biases then we will have to have more government restrictions on the press and tougher laws against recordings and leaks.

Just look at the summary from the new yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/04/donald-sterling-nba-clippers-owner-revealing-racism.html


You shouldn’t have to be Magic Johnson to be welcome, as a black man, at a Los Angeles Clippers game—or anywhere. And yet one of the shocks, for many, of a tape recording in which a man, said to be Donald Sterling, owner of the Clippers, berates a woman identified as V. Stiviano for “associating with black people” and bringing “them to my games” is that the fight was apparently triggered when she posted a picture of herself with Magic on Instagram. (“Don’t put him on an Instagram… And don’t bring him to my games.”) Even racist white boyfriends are supposed to be proud of that.

Even supposedly premiere intellectual journals are completely mindless.

I'm afraid this is the future of politics. Forget about sterling and imagine your favored presidential candidate going up against someone awful, and getting on the wrong end of some moronic media frenzy over a hacked or leaked recording that doesn't say what everyone is wildly claiming it does, and no one bothering to look closer.

[Ironside]

I listened to the tape...he says NOTHING racist. It almost seems like she's trying to make it sound like that, but he he's baffled when she acts like she thinks he's racist, like when she asks him if he wants her to "remove the skin color out of my skin", you can hear it in his voice.

His motivation here is basically the same as all the sponsors pulling away from the clippers--simple concern for what people think.


"My racist friends wants you to stop associate with black people, so could you please do that?" No sign of bending backwards and promoting racism here. That's not counting him talking to his trophy mistress, that he wants to stay together with. You kind of want to tone down things at such a situation.

Does the media drag out the worst things? Yes. Still doesn't change what he's requesting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"My racist friends wants you to stop associate with black people, so could you please do that?" No sign of bending backwards and promoting racism here.

He didn't say that. He didn't say they were his friends, and he didn't tell her to stop associating with black people: "In your whole life, everyday you can be with them. Every single day of your life", "You can sleep with them, you can bring them in, you can do whatever you want".

He's not promoting racism, this is a private conversation with his mistress. He's not bending over backwards for it either, he's just not trying to force all those people to change how they think. You can't actually live that way, trying to make everyone else fall in line. Maybe you can get them to stop talking about a particular thing, but people have a limited tolerance for it.

Even if you find it extremely objectionable that he hasn't rejected the people he knows, and doesn't fight every day against racism, it doesn't change the fact that he is being slandered based on a leaked phonecall which is being wildly misrepresented. If the media will do it to him they will do it in the next election, and even though you don't live in america that can still effect you...



Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect. For those reasons, UCLA has decided to return Mr. Sterling’s initial payment of $425,000 and reject the remainder of a $3 million pledge he recently made to support basic kidney research by the UCLA Division of Nephrology.

It's like people are insane. Why is his donation to kidney research being returned?

I guess it's condescending, but I think in cases like this there are many people who basically believe in magic. As if their own condemnation of racism changes the world, as if even private racist comments, if left un-condemned, work some kind of satanic influence. People act like they are fighting all racism by condemning him, as if it is some dark force. For them he embodies that force at the moment and so there must be repentance or exorcism, hence the extreme overreaction. It's as superstitious as believing that prayers can turn back hurricanes. Somehow his donation is an intolerable pollution.

In a reasonable culture this would be purely tabloid news. No self respecting news organization would touch it.

[Montmorency]

After all the point of a trophy mistress is to make you look good to your rich buddies, not get you made fun of. His motivation here is basically the same as all the sponsors pulling away from the clippers--simple concern for what people think.


Wow. Just, wow.

[Montmorency]

as if even private racist comments, if left un-condemned, work some kind of satanic influence.

Actually, the private stuff is the most important to the issue...

[Ironside]

He didn't say that. He didn't say they were his friends, and he didn't tell her to stop associating with black people: "In your whole life, everyday you can be with them. Every single day of your life", "You can sleep with them, you can bring them in, you can do whatever you want".

If it's not his friends, it's even worse. He did say to her to stop publically associating with black people, even if he allowed it in private. That what he said to his mistress, who's taking skin colour personally. That's kind of the person were you might not go all out on your opinions about black people.


He's not promoting racism, this is a private conversation with his mistress. He's not bending over backwards for it either, he's just not trying to force all those people to change how they think. You can't actually live that way, trying to make everyone else fall in line. Maybe you can get them to stop talking about a particular thing, but people have a limited tolerance for it.

He's very much promoting racism. If your boss tells you to not serve black people, obeying him promotes racism, no matter your own opinion. It's nice of him to not try to force people to change their racist thoughts, by not allowing any display that might offend them. It gets even better when he does this by trying to change how a person should act. It's not the thought that counts, its the act. That's why we punish actual crimes and not the thought of crimes.


Even if you find it extremely objectionable that he hasn't rejected the people he knows, and doesn't fight every day against racism, it doesn't change the fact that he is being slandered based on a leaked phonecall which is being wildly misrepresented. If the media will do it to him they will do it in the next election, and even though you don't live in america that can still effect you...

He has a reputation of worse things (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729), but they weren't recorded, only witnessed and payed off through settlements. It's basically taking Al Capone on tax evasion.
And its not slander. And still racist. Tax evasion is still a crime.


as if even private racist comments, if left un-condemned, work some kind of satanic influence. People act like they are fighting all racism by condemning him, as if it is some dark force.

Yes? Every act you do stem from your thoughts. Thoughts are free, but the acts from them are not. By suggesting a racist act, he's promoting racism. Racist comments is more complicated, but basically by allowing the words to stand uncontested, you accept what they say. That in turn promotes actions, since they're easier to make towards barbaric, subhuman, unassociatable, "whatever negative thing" people, than normal people.

[Goofball]

Yes, you really should.

Democracy, you know.

You might not support their view, but you should be willing to die for their right to state it. You propose a more updated version of democracy? If so, why?

I don't think you really get the concept of freedom of speech. It doesn't mean you can say whatever, wherever, whenever and to whomever you want without consequence. The government is not locking him up and no criminal charges have been even considered. There you go. No violation of his rights.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think you really get the concept of freedom of speech. It doesn't mean you can say whatever, wherever, whenever and to whomever you want without consequence. The government is not locking him up and no criminal charges have been even considered. There you go. No violation of his rights.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences thereof -- it only means that the government cannot restrict your right to cram your own foot in your mouth up to the ankle.

[drone]

Yeah, he's really getting punished. Paid $12.5 million for the team in '81, mismanaged them as league's laughingstock franchise for 30 years, and now will be "forced" to sell for close to $1 billion. I'm sure he'll manage somehow...

My bad, make that $2 billion. Way to make it hurt, Silver!

On the plus side, we get to see Steve Ballmer mismanage in public again!

[ReluctantSamurai]

And so the saga continues:

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/11059020/donald-sterling-decides-pursue-1-billion-lawsuit-nba-all