I'm not excusing racism, and there are indications this man is racist, based on previous issues and findings.

Yet, if he was impaired, would that give him a by?  Can people not be idiots and jerks in real life? what led up to his comments to the woman?  

There relationship seems to be interesting given the age difference and other lawsuits going on.

so, what is resaonable in this case?

Does it make a difference that he was talking to hsi girlfriend versus say, an employee?

He must not have been an overtly racist person, he was about to get an award forr his philanthropy with the black community.

But he has now been sanctioned fined and will likely lose the team.

I find it odd. A nasty person , likely, and I can see players and sponsor might drop him but he is being sanctioned forr his opinion. It is a disgraceful opinion but he would not be alone in having it.

Bigotry is alive and well everywhere. I guess what you say in private though is no ones business.

The situation stinks to me.

His wife is in a messy divorce and is suing the girl friend. Didn't hear for what. And the girl friend is taping him? Guess she decided she had enough being the girl for an ugly old rich white guy

This is very sad for all concerned. I think he was jealous of his gf with the black guys and he lost his cool. It   will be a hard road alead for the gf too, nobody is going to trust her.

Lots of pics. of both parties and videos:

Aaah, it seems it is the morals clause in the contract that got him.

Good.

I still wonder about using the recording of a private conversation; however, since he admitted it was his voice...

Here is the sports illustrated quick summary of it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140429/donald-sterling-nba-a...

I didn't read the whole story, started to but it's long.  I'll have to go back to it.

Having a private conversation shared and being punished for it feels a bit like a search without a warrent.  It's not something I'm fully comfortable with.  I'm not aware of this context yet though, need to read further into it.

I was under the impression that there is a "consent law"  Recording a conversation.without pemission and using it against someone is illegal isn't it?

It  appears there are two factors.

1.  he admitted it was his voice

2. he had signed a morals clause and given that there is clear embarassment to the nba it would hold up in court

note: what is required for a contratual agreement is different than for the law as relates to say proving someone is guilty of a crime

I didn't much like it, either. I'm not sure that entrapment is much more ethical than racism. But any man who thinks that a woman half a century younger than he is loves him is so seriously delusional that he almost deserves to be victimized. 

It's just a yuck-yuck situation.

the rules around recording are different in canada and the states.  I had read about this item last week, unrelated to this situation.  i am not sure if i can find it again.

in canada, it is legal to record a conversation if you are a part of it without informing the other person.  picture that you answer the phone after your answering machine cuts in...that is legal

Therre's a morals clause but I don't think it deals with this specific situation. I don't know why admitting that it was his voice should nullify the consent law (I believe it's a two person consent law), if anything it would give him more of a case that the law was violated.

Sterling is an attorney, so we'll see what he comes up with.

Waterfall, in Canada, if you phone me, I can record the call.  There is no rquirement for two-person consent.

double post

Can you use it in court?

California law:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

If I remember correctly, Waterfall, yes you can, in Canada. 

If you are a part of the conversation, then you can record it.

It is different if it is a wiretap by say a police force.

But we're talking about Californina law aren't we?

Right, but, the point that they made was that the embarassment was the point.

Picture you are walking around stumbling drunk. TMV catches you on film, and you blather on, clearly impaired.

In a morality clause that can be sufficient.  You dont' have to fail a drug test or an impaired test....the embarassment / evidence can be sufficient.

Do not quote me but I believe I heard on CNN that the gf cannot be charged. I forget the reasons why not. I was not paying full attention. 

I wasn't thinking that the girlfriend would get charged with anything Stardust, just that the recorded conversation could not be used as evidence to oust Sterling.

Here is a quote from a long article yesterday.

Quote:

It's believed that the NBA would also like to interview the woman heard in the recordings, identified as V. Stiviano. The woman's attorney, Mac Nehoray, did not directly respond to an inquiry from ESPN about whether his client was cooperating with the NBA.

But Nehoray said in a statement on Sunday that the audio tapes released Friday night by TMZ are "in fact legitimate" and come from a 15-minute segment of an approximately one-hour audio recording of Sterling and Stiviano. He asserts that Stiviano did not release the tape to any news media.

Nehoray also said Sunday that, because of the recent civil litigation brought by Sterling's wife, Rochelle Sterling, against his client, she would have no further comments on the matter.

In addition to liability in the civil case, Stiviano also could be subject to legal action for recording Sterling without his knowledge, which is illegal in the state of California, although it is not yet known who made the recordings or how these unknowns will affect the NBA's investigation. (Some legal experts maintain that because of California law, basing any punishment on the recordings could prove problematic if Sterling retaliates with legal action.)

Does it matter if it was a private conversation or if he was yelling from centre court?  Once he vocalized his private thoughts he must take ownership of them and be held accountable.  I applaud the swift and just response frm the NBA.  ZERO tolerance for racism.

That's would present a problem for the War on Terrorism.

waterfall - if you were in NBA commissioner Adam Silver's shoes - what would you have done?

Racism is a learned behaviour.  It will stop when it is no longer taught or given a pass.

Waterfall, do be sure that I understand your comment re the War of Terrorism.  Are you referring to individuals who say terrible things about Muslims presuming all are terrorists?

Inukshuk.   The challenge was the apparent presumption of guilt; however, it appears that he did admit it was him on the voice, and yes, he said them, and my guess is there is a lot more to the story based on his past history.

Just as I said in another thread, we may never know due to non-disclosure agreements.  Who knows what is hidden behind seeled documents.   

NBA lawyers are not stupid.  They could not have presented the case as quickly if there had not been more going on.  That isn't a conspiracy theory. That is just how organizations work.  

I definitely would have anticipated sanctions, the severity and the swiftness are the interesting elements for me and lead me to believe there was already a sanction against him..

The ugly truth about racism is that it still exists, we may think we are more tolerant but it is still around. The NBA is embarassed probably due to the fact that most of the players are black and there is an immediate need to act, otherwise they may have been faced with a walkout from the players that may have been supported by all teams. Their profits are at stake as well as their reputation. So I realize what else is at stake along with the disgust it fuels. Will forcing Sterling to sell the team or being given a lifetime ban change his behaviour? Probably not. Would an apology or forcng him to take courses in race relations or anger management? Probably not. Is this the ultimate example that racism isn't tolerated in the United States?  I doubt it.

Adam Silver has multiple interests he has to address and chose the most drastic to resolve a very big issue that goes much deeper than anything that Sterling brought forward. Sterling's actions throughout the years pointed to a known racism amongst the board members, so the question is, why did he have to be caught with words and not with actions. Is one easier to sweep under the rug and ignore?

And that pretty well sums up racisms continued low key existence, don't say it out loud or we have to act on it.

The reference to the "War on Terrorism" only points out that racism is still used to create fear because the government knows it will still speak to us and work for their ultimate aim to go to war.

Lastpointe wrote "Bigotry is alive and well everywhere"  waterfall wrote "the ugly truth about racism is that it still exists"  We can change that - if every time racism rears its ugly head we stomp on it.  It will only exist if we allow it to.  Remember what happened to Red's owner Marg Schott?

Sterling' previous actions regarding racism in the rental buildings he owned were brought to court and he was found guilty.

"Racism is still used to create fear...the government knows it will still speak to us..." Come on - this is the 21st century - we are wiser than that.

Most visible minorities wouldn't agree with you.....

Here's Karreem Abdul Jabbar"s comments:

http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/

Sterling has to sell now. He has lost his sponsors and they won't come back if he still has control of the team. He will never attract a free agent. He will not get a good TV deal, because sponsors will not pay to be associated with him. He's done.

This puts him in a crappy position for the sale, but regardless of the owner's decision to force him to sell or not, he pretty much has to. Even if he hands the operation off to his "estranged" wife, I don't see support coming back.

What he might do, is fight it as long as he can, simply because he can. He ran a loser of a team for decades, so he isn't afraid of that. He has more money than he can spend. That's dangerous.

If that happens, Chris Paul will demand a trade. Blake Griffin will demand a trade. Doc Rivers will leave or "retire". Any significant star in the NBA will refuse to play for the Clippers while Sterling owns the team in any capacity. They will play out this year, but I can't see this great collection of players coming back. The stars will force trades, they will only have players who need NBA jobs willing to play for them, and they probably won't win 5 games next year if he remains an owner, even in absentia. For all the above reasons, no one will buy tickets to watch a bad team and support a racist owner.

This could yet become a complete catastrophe for the NBA if they don't force him out. It will remain a distraction and an embarrassment for the league until Sterling is gone. Owners know that. So while they don't want to set a precident for forcing a sale over words spoken, if Sterling fights the sale, they have to fight back and try to force it.

Think what will happen if the owners vote not to force a sale. Players from all teams will revolt. The rift between owners and players could become insurmountable. Could players form their own league? I think the situation is just that toxic. The owners aren't stupid. They will, to a person/corporation, vote to force the sale.

Please tell me exactly the sentence you are referring to.

Larry Johnson former NBA star and KNicks executive is calling on the players to form their own basketball league. When he was playing he said that basketball players were treated like slaves by the white owners of NBA teams. He was rudculed and called the 40 million dollar slave. Sterlings comments about "giving" players houses and cloths, shows a wide spread attitude among the super rich white owners who view heir players as they would view live stock or racing horses. 

This further highlights the inequity among non star players and the billionaire owners. 

 College players have won the right to unionise, (college level football generate as much revenue as the NFL, but there players recieve no pay,(an mostly a fake education)  while the white run schools that own the teams pour the millionms in profits towards their largely white and asian students)  

This years after it was revealed that many college level basketball players (usually African AMericans) went to bed hunger, after a team was censored for feeding them (supposedly the ammount of pasta they were given was abopve the legal limit for them to retain their "amateur" status.  

"In a locker room in AT&T Stadium after the University of Connecticut Huskies won the NCAA Division I men’s basketball national championship, UConn’s star player, Shabazz Napier, sat in a locker room.  Like many champions before him, he sat with media members’ recorders in front of his face engaging in a post-game interview.  While there was nothing extraordinary about the setting, it was the words that came out of Napier’s mouth that made the interview out of the ordinary:  ”Sometimes, there’s hungry nights where I’m not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities.”

"

the issue of allowing schools to provide athletes unlimited meals has actually been on the NCAA’s table since 2012.  It was in that year that the Collegiate and Professional Sport Dietitians Association provided data to the NCAA demonstrating that some of its athletes were not receiving proper nutrition"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2014/04/15/the-ncaa-approves-un...

Stirling may have started a "basketball spring" which could spread to other sports, and other sectors in the US economy.

It will be interesting to watch.

Yes, Alex it will be interesting.  The owners will be voting today, to decide if Sterling should be forced out;  and Oprah is in the wings counting up her purse change to buy the team.

Hi Pinga,

What a great question.

The more I hear about both parties involved the less respect I have for either.

At any rate social media is rapidly eliminating the possibility of private speech so everyone should learn to think long and hard before they open their mouth and say something that is going to call attention to themselves.

The League will do what the League thinks is for the best of its brand.  Justice really has nothing to do with it.  It is simply a veneer and means nothing.  The only colour the league is concerned about is green.

In the court of public opinion what lead up to the comments is far less important than the fact that they were made.

Those words come from some thoughts held somewhere and it is that sphere of reality which needs to be addressed.

The only difference between a billionaire, racist, team owner and a billionaire, racist is team ownership.  Sterling is no less a racist for having the team taken away from him and it wasn't really his team ownership that was the problem was it?

Outrage 1  Correction 0.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks folks, good comments

I am sure this one will have legs.

Today our news are full of the taping at a party of ford and at a bar.

I am sure ford didn't agree to those recordings either

Good life lesson - especially when it comes to comments that devalue the human race

I have no doubt that Divine justice will be offered to Sterling.

I am optimistic that social justice is being played out.

I'll have to wait to see what civil justice decides.

Which brings up the subject of sex tapes. According to the Star one of the Ford tapes for sale is a sex tape.  

Canada is considering a law that would make it illegal to distribute sexualy explicit recording without consent of those involved.  If sexually activity can remain private, what about other activities and or speech,

a sex tape?  with Ford? ewwwww

love this