What do you think of the NBA's decision to ban Donald Sterling for life and fine him $2.5M?
Reflecting a few days here's my take on the decision from the angle of what I see the controversy: Does the NBA really have the right to do all it's saying they are doing to Sterling (which includes forcing him to sell)?The answer isn't simply an "I don't know", but probably more of "The NBA doesn't actually know". They are going to try to do this thing, and Sterling appears that he's going to resist and sue. And then it's up to the courts.And from the NBA's perspective, while they would rather see Sterling gone for myriad reasons, even if they lose the case, they are still in far better shape than if they had gone easier on Sterling. So what do I think of the NBA's decision? i think the NBA simply had to try to inflict the maximum possible punishment on Sterling because anything less than that would leave them open to allegations that they protected their Good Old Boy. They therefore had to punt the actual Solomon-esque judgment to the court and thus it really makes little sense to ask whether they should have done something different. They did what they had to do.And that's true of Sterling in the past unfortunately. The NBA didn't take harsher measures on Sterling in the past because they didn't have to. What changed in the past 20+ years truly isn't our attitude toward race, but the fear the NBA has for the "crowd".As for whether Sterling deserves consequences so severe based on the type of human being he is, I think he does.As for whether our laws should be such that the prescribed consequences are legal, well that's all about what the contracts actually say for what it means to "own" the Clippers and be part of the league.The threat that I think would be awesome if it could be used:Donald we can't force you to sell the Clippers. All we can do is drop the Clippers from the NBA and add another franchise in its place. Maybe you can get the Harlem Globetrotters to play your team.
Does Donald Sterling have a chance of winning his lawsuit against the NBA?
First this move is entirely predictable and what I would expect from any decent lawyer or negotiator. You always file a counter-claim to increase leverage and make the other side think twice. The sterling claim itself may be almost compete BS but you file anyway. Next, whenever you submit a dispute to a court or arbitrator there is a 20% chance of anything happening. So yeah he could win. The facts are not good for this guy. That's for sure. However, the key evidence is the recording. It seems like the recording was made without his consent and if it was illegally made there may be a chance of having it excluded from consideration because it was illegally obtained. If the tape is tossed then the league's case isn't all that strong. If the tape is admissible then Sterling will be able to explain himself. It's possible the court or arbitrator will buy his explanation and conclude that the punishment is excessive and denied him due process. In the end, what's this guy got to lose? Might as well fight. You might win or at least lessen the sting. Can't get much worse. Frankly I'd hate to be the league's lawyers cuz everyone expects you to win and the legal system just isn't that predictable. If you are Sterling's lawyer everybody thinks you are hosed and you can be a hero. Id rather be his lawyer, vile though he might be.
What does the Donald Sterling judgment mean for Orlando Magic owner Rich DeVos and his stance on gay rights? Should he be banned and stripped of his team?
Rich DeVos has a few things going for him The NBA isn't composed of 70% homosexual players.He doesn't have a 30+ year history of outlandish bigotry.The state in which he owns a team doesn't recognize any form of relationship between partners of the same sex.The sentiment of being anti-gay isn't as important to NBA players as being anti-black. He's actually been a competent franchise owner. Sterling's situation was a unique one. I've sort of got the feeling over the past week that the NBA had wanted to rid themselves of Sterling but never had an out before. The housing discrimination cases? He settled those out of court without ever admitting guilt. He paid to make them go away. Those tapes? They were the smoking gun. And Sterling's refusal to express remorse, guilt, or any other views when speaking with Adam Silver sealed the deal. People have written about the Sterling era from a basketball perspective. He was a bad owner and a bad employer. It wasn't just the way he handled players. Bill Simmons talked about how he would fire his sales staff after the season and hire them back when he needed them again. I haven't heard any of those things about Rich DeVos. He's run his franchise competently and has had more success in 20 years than Sterling. It would be a bigger issue if the NBA was 70% gay, rather than 70% black. Until his beliefs become a problem for the league, expect nothing to happen.
What would be the most effective way to get rid of flopping/diving in soccer and other professional sports?
The most effective way to get rid of flopping would be to never call a foul if the player goes to ground. That also happens to be a terrible idea, but it would be the most effective because every athlete would try to stay on his feet as much as possible.A less effective but equally stupid way to get rid of flopping is to allow the possibility for every foul call to be video-reviewed by officials on the sidelines or in a booth. In basketball and soccer, this would kill the game's tempo and enjoyment factor.The reason athletes flop is because they know that referees sometimes miss calls (aka referees are not superhuman). As long as referees have to make split-second decisions on the field/court, athletes will flop. It's just part of the game, man. A lot of people think that diving is dishonorable or unfair. I think they may have a point in cases where there is no contact, but the majority of dives have at least a little bit of contact involved. Tightening the rules to a point where all contact is disallowed would be foolish. and each individual referee has his own metric of how much contact is too much. It would be unreasonable to create a rulebook describing every possible point of contact on the human body and saying whether it's a foul or not, and even if it was reasonable, it'd be nearly impossible to remember all of them.The point is that until referees are robots or superhumans, athletes will try to gain advantages over their opponents. Flopping is merely a method of gaining advantage.
If a man who fully owns a company but is not a CEO or a director on the board because he is retired makes racist comments in public/on the social media, what can the company do about this when he is not an officer or a director?
It’s a difficult question to answer without knowing what was said, on what forum, and to and by whom. It would also be helpful to know what country the company and person making the statement is located.