Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Magazine)   "Am I entitled to one mistake, am I after 35 years?" asks Donald Sterling. Presumably he isn't talking about drafting Michael Olowokandi   (nymag.com) divider line 47
    More: Dumbass, Michael Olowokandi, Donald Sterling, drafting, V. Stiviano, Clippers  
•       •       •

285 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 May 2014 at 11:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-05-12 08:53:15 AM  
Pretty sure that's already a "No".
 
2014-05-12 10:11:43 AM  
Which mistake we talking about?  The stupid and racist comments, or spending a fortune on a mistress who can't be trusted?

Plus, given his largely overlooked history, I'm not sure that's a thread he wants to tug.
 
2014-05-12 11:31:41 AM  
It wasn't one mistake.  It was a lifestyle for him.
 
2014-05-12 11:32:55 AM  
Dude, this is about more than that one thing.  The league is pushing you out because they don't like you.  The league doesn't really like being associated with a slumlord.  It was tolerated in the early 80s because the league needed the money, but after Magic and Bird came along the NBA became what they are today.  You're an unfortunate relic of that time and they want to "fix" that problem.
 
2014-05-12 11:38:29 AM  
Nope, you aren't entitled to shiat. Take your millions and live the rest of your days banging sluts, being crazy racist, kicking minorities out of apartments, you know, whatevs. Your public persona is dead, move on.
 
2014-05-12 11:44:39 AM  
I guess he's assuming most people aren't aware of his decades of being a bigoted prick?

Understandable, since the NBA looked the other way for 30 years until some hooker had her "gotcha" moment.
 
2014-05-12 11:45:18 AM  
Sure, he's entitled to make mistakes. He's not entitled to own a sportsball team, though.
 
2014-05-12 11:45:38 AM  
I love how she made him say it. His apology amounts to "I did a horrible thing, but only because that biatch made me do it".

Own up for it without putting the blame almost entirely on someone else. Otherwise it is obvious you are only sorry you got caught out.
 
2014-05-12 11:49:23 AM  

Yanks_RSJ: some hooker


I hope he paid her well. She deserves it for having to listen to his whiny warble all the time. Men with high, whiny voices go right up my spine.
 
2014-05-12 11:51:56 AM  
I feel like we're beating a dead horse here, only this horse refuses to admit it's dead so...

thumbs.dreamstime.com

we're gonna have to go into extra innings it seems.
 
2014-05-12 11:52:20 AM  
This isn't his first mistake.

I find it weird that racist remarks were a bridge too far for a man who had to settle with the DoJ over a housing discrimination lawsuit.  If the NBA found his racism so intolerable, why didn't it toss him in 2006? Why did he keep getting awards from the NAACP after trying to prevent black residents from moving into his Koreatown apartments?  Why did the public and his sponsors turn a blind eye until a racist audiotape surfaced when his attitude was on display years earlier?

His comments are bad, but they are nowhere near as bad as his previous actions.
 
2014-05-12 11:55:02 AM  

Yanks_RSJ: I guess he's assuming most people aren't aware of his decades of being a bigoted prick?

Understandable, since the NBA looked the other way for 30 years until some hooker had her "gotcha" moment.


The NBA was looking the other way because Owners protect Owners. Sterling pretty much stole money from the 29 other owners by putting out a cheap product and getting millions in revenue sharing. And the owners did nothing. If you look at the early statements by owners, they were pretty wishy-washy. 

The owners caved because after 40 years, the NBA players had their "Ah, Hell No!" moment. The Owners have been treating their players with contempt, Sterling was the first to publicly say what the other owners thought.
 
2014-05-12 11:57:44 AM  
Sure Donald. Pick which "mistake" you want to count as one.

2003? 2006? 2009? 2014?

Go ahead. Pick one...
 
2014-05-12 12:03:09 PM  

llortcM_yllort: This isn't his first mistake.

I find it weird that racist remarks were a bridge too far for a man who had to settle with the DoJ over a housing discrimination lawsuit.  If the NBA found his racism so intolerable, why didn't it toss him in 2006? Why did he keep getting awards from the NAACP after trying to prevent black residents from moving into his Koreatown apartments?  Why did the public and his sponsors turn a blind eye until a racist audiotape surfaced when his attitude was on display years earlier?

His comments are bad, but they are nowhere near as bad as his previous actions.


A sound bite plays better and will get more attention than reporting on some court case. And this sound bite caught on with the public and the sponsors saw that and bailed. That is the sole thing that caused this reaction.
 
2014-05-12 12:03:39 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Dude, this is about more than that one thing.  The league is pushing you out because they don't like you.  The league doesn't really like being associated with a slumlord.  It was tolerated in the early 80s because the league needed the money, but after Magic and Bird came along the NBA became what they are today.  You're an unfortunate relic of that time and they want to "fix" that problem.


They hate being associated with a slumlord so much they only stood for it for two decades. What a principled stand they're taking, 20 years after the fact.
 
2014-05-12 12:10:22 PM  
Ha, he's screwed and he knows it. I wonder if there was a scene in some hotel meeting room, where Sterling walked into the center of the room, Silver gave him a thumbs-down, and every owner turned their back on Donald, as he slowly walked out?

"Oh, I'm 81 and I'm so old, I'm not even sure what's going on?" Really, Donald, that's what you're rolling with? Do it, Donald, you master lawyer, you. Fight for your team in court, and let the NBA bring out a goddamn parade of witnesses to tell the world what an incredible piece of shiat you are.
 
2014-05-12 12:11:32 PM  
The time for sympathy has long passed
 
2014-05-12 12:14:36 PM  

llortcM_yllort: This isn't his first mistake.

I find it weird that racist remarks were a bridge too far for a man who had to settle with the DoJ over a housing discrimination lawsuit.  If the NBA found his racism so intolerable, why didn't it toss him in 2006? Why did he keep getting awards from the NAACP after trying to prevent black residents from moving into his Koreatown apartments?  Why did the public and his sponsors turn a blind eye until a racist audiotape surfaced when his attitude was on display years earlier?

His comments are bad, but they are nowhere near as bad as his previous actions.


You could have lawyers cover for you on evicting people, but you can't have them cover up extended audio of you speaking personally about how you don't want black people around.

In the back of my mind though I'm hoping that the NBA suspended him because he's a terrible owner, and that Jim Dolan will get the same treatment someday.
 
2014-05-12 12:15:20 PM  

Komplex: Yanks_RSJ: I guess he's assuming most people aren't aware of his decades of being a bigoted prick?

Understandable, since the NBA looked the other way for 30 years until some hooker had her "gotcha" moment.

The NBA was looking the other way because Owners protect Owners. Sterling pretty much stole money from the 29 other owners by putting out a cheap product and getting millions in revenue sharing. And the owners did nothing. If you look at the early statements by owners, they were pretty wishy-washy. 

The owners caved because after 40 years, the NBA players had their "Ah, Hell No!" moment. The Owners have been treating their players with contempt, Sterling was the first to publicly say what the other owners thought.


The NBA looked the other way because the Clippers were terrible for the vast majority of Sterlng's reign.  Aside from the assorted fat Baron Davis types and Kobe's flirtation with the Clips (give Kobe's agent credit, it worked) no one was going to sign with them.
 
2014-05-12 12:15:55 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Why did he keep getting awards from the NAACP after trying to prevent black residents from moving into his Koreatown apartments?


It was the L.A. chapter of the NAACP, and its president subsequently stepped down due to being massively corrupt and immoral.
 
2014-05-12 12:20:03 PM  
I find it weird that so many people are asking how he could have gotten away with this stuff for so long. How about: because our society favors and protects the very rich from the types of consequences that would hamper the rest of us?
 
2014-05-12 12:54:17 PM  
FTFA:

When Cooper asks if Sterling has apologized to Magic Johnson, whose appearance on Stiviano's Instagram sparked his tirade, he says they've spoken twice since the story broke. "If I said anything wrong, I'm sorry," Sterling says. "He's a good person. I mean, what am I going to say? Has he done everything he can do to help minorities? I don't think so. But I'll say it, he's great. But I don't think he's a good example for the children of Los Angeles."


Seriously? F*ck that lowlife, shiatbag
 
2014-05-12 01:06:34 PM  
llortcM_yllort:  I find it weird that racist remarks were a bridge too far for a man who had to settle with the DoJ over a housing discrimination lawsuit.  If the NBA found his racism so intolerable, why didn't it toss him in 2006? Why did he keep getting awards from the NAACP after trying to prevent black residents from moving into his Koreatown apartments?  Why did the public and his sponsors turn a blind eye until a racist audiotape surfaced when his attitude was on display years earlier?

l.yimg.com
 
2014-05-12 01:09:07 PM  

Mind of the North Star: FTFA:

When Cooper asks if Sterling has apologized to Magic Johnson, whose appearance on Stiviano's Instagram sparked his tirade, he says they've spoken twice since the story broke. "If I said anything wrong, I'm sorry," Sterling says. "He's a good person. I mean, what am I going to say? Has he done everything he can do to help minorities? I don't think so. But I'll say it, he's great. But I don't think he's a good example for the children of Los Angeles."


Seriously? F*ck that lowlife, shiatbag


Make a non-apology, deflect, build a strawman, and attack. Classic response to being called out as a horrible person.
 
2014-05-12 01:24:23 PM  
jayhawk88:

"Oh, I'm 81 and I'm so old, I'm not even sure what's going on?" Really, Donald, that's what you're rolling with? Do it, Donald, you master lawyer, you. Fight for your team in court, and let the NBA bring out a goddamn parade of witnesses to tell the world what an incredible piece of shiat you are."

I'm all for it, cuz' the "this ol' man don't understand these newfangled lawyer-words" defense worked so well with JoePa.....
 
2014-05-12 01:27:09 PM  
I wonder if the "I'm just an old man, and I got no idea what's going on" will work as well for Sterling as it did for Paterno?
 
2014-05-12 01:27:58 PM  
Stupid slow phone.
 
2014-05-12 01:35:45 PM  
Well, if our instantaneous posts on the matter mean anything, it won't work too well
 
2014-05-12 01:51:55 PM  

dywed88: Mind of the North Star: FTFA:

When Cooper asks if Sterling has apologized to Magic Johnson, whose appearance on Stiviano's Instagram sparked his tirade, he says they've spoken twice since the story broke. "

If I said anything wrong, I'm sorry," Sterling says. "He's a good person. I mean, what am I going to say? Has he done everything he can do to help minorities? I don't think so. But I'll say it, he's great. But I don't think he's a good example for the children of Los Angeles."


Seriously? F*ck that lowlife, shiatbag

Make a non-apology, deflect, build a strawman, and attack. Classic response to being called out as a horrible person.


If?  If?  he still doesn't get it.
 
2014-05-12 02:18:07 PM  

llortcM_yllort: This isn't his first mistake.

I find it weird that racist remarks were a bridge too far for a man who had to settle with the DoJ over a housing discrimination lawsuit.  If the NBA found his racism so intolerable, why didn't it toss him in 2006? Why did he keep getting awards from the NAACP after trying to prevent black residents from moving into his Koreatown apartments?  Why did the public and his sponsors turn a blind eye until a racist audiotape surfaced when his attitude was on display years earlier?

His comments are bad, but they are nowhere near as bad as his previous actions.


These actions were going to cost important people serious money.  That's all it takes to get businessmen to pull out their daggers while your back is turned.  This is the way it is and he knew that.
 
2014-05-12 02:21:16 PM  

llortcM_yllort: This isn't his first mistake.

I find it weird that racist remarks were a bridge too far for a man who had to settle with the DoJ over a housing discrimination lawsuit.   If the NBA found his racism so intolerable, why didn't it toss him in 2006? Why did he keep getting awards from the NAACP after trying to prevent black residents from moving into his Koreatown apartments?  Why did the public and his sponsors turn a blind eye until a racist audiotape surfaced when his attitude was on display years earlier?

His comments are bad, but they are nowhere near as bad as his previous actions.


Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. Instagram. Tumblr. Etc. Social Media in general. That's the difference now.

The NBA could ignore Donald Sterling in 2006. It could pretend that his non-Basketball actions had no connection to his basketball actions. Writers in LA could write their hands blue and it it it was easy to keep it from spreading out from LA to any useful degree. Now? Once something is out, it's pretty much out there forever. It hits the world at the speed of light, almost literally.

So this time the NBA couldn't ignore it. They couldn't keep it behind closed doors or as a local LA story. It's national. It's global. And now the NBA has to do something to protect its image, its brand and its revenue. So they're getting rid of the problem.

Yeah, they should have done it decades ago. Yeah, there are many things that are much more damning for the Sterlings. Plural. But this is the straw that hit the Social Media-verse and turned into a redwood around his neck and the NBA.

/Going to be a lot fewer individual owners in major sports going forward; too easy for one guy to fark up and cause this kind of a shiatstorm. If you've got a corporation or group of owners, you can deal with 1 of them without creating this sort of destabilization.
 
2014-05-12 02:57:24 PM  

Techhell: Yeah, they should have done it decades ago. Yeah, there are many things that are much more damning for the Sterlings. Plural. But this is the straw that hit the Social Media-verse and turned into a redwood around his neck and the NBA.


Stern didn't want to deal with Sterling because he didn't want him to become his Al Davis (Sterling and Davis were good friends - shocker, litigious pieces of sh*t love each others' company because no one else likes 'em).

The reason he couldn't take action before is because nothing really got to the point where something could be done about it. Rich people with lots of power are great at using every mechanism available to ensure that they won't lose it - see Sterling's lawsuits of people who filed any type of claim against him, knowing that he had the law team to overwhelm them. It's extremely difficult for truth to compete with money in the courtroom (or anywhere else, as the LA chapter of the NAACP shows).

I just wonder what point the people who are saying "well, these other people got money from Sterling for a long time and were okay with it" are trying to say.

Is it that they're not saints themselves because they tolerated someone who had the power to ruin their lives for some money? Okay, cool. Is it that Sterling's viewpoints were not a problem because hey, those people were paid enough for them to take it?

Well, that's not exactly true - again, many people DID sue Sterling for the way he treated people. He just tied them up in the courts and waited out their money.

So who is to protect the populace from people like Sterling, who amass power before people, as a whole, are aware of their general sh*ttiness? Why SHOULDN'T people who are consummate assholes stand to lose everything?
 
2014-05-12 03:07:26 PM  

Arkanaut: You could have lawyers cover for you on evicting people, but you can't have them cover up extended audio of you speaking personally about how you don't want black people around.


Is it even admissible?  I don't know how recording/privacy laws in California work, but other places it would not be usable.  Of course, different standards may apply due to it being civil and not criminal.  As weird and backwards as it may be, Sterling's shady past might be what helps him. The NBA can present other stuff as showing a history of stuff, but he can counter with the NBA knew about this other stuff and did nothing, which potentially sets a precedent.  What he did previously was worse.  If the NBA knew about it (they did) and did nothing (once again, they didn't), that implies tactic acceptance of his actions.

//It's screwed that the law can work this way, but I've seen it played this way before.
 
2014-05-12 03:32:34 PM  

mjbok: Arkanaut: You could have lawyers cover for you on evicting people, but you can't have them cover up extended audio of you speaking personally about how you don't want black people around.

Is it even admissible?  I don't know how recording/privacy laws in California work, but other places it would not be usable.  Of course, different standards may apply due to it being civil and not criminal.  As weird and backwards as it may be, Sterling's shady past might be what helps him. The NBA can present other stuff as showing a history of stuff, but he can counter with the NBA knew about this other stuff and did nothing, which potentially sets a precedent.  What he did previously was worse.  If the NBA knew about it (they did) and did nothing (once again, they didn't), that implies tactic acceptance of his actions.

//It's screwed that the law can work this way, but I've seen it played this way before.


That's the other big difference -- this isn't a trial or a lawsuit, it's just a public relations nightmare. The NBA isn't worried about getting sued, they're worried about fans or maybe even players walking out. In any case, the NBA has its own internal rules and codes of conduct that probably isn't subject to legal review.
 
2014-05-12 03:35:29 PM  

mjbok: Arkanaut: You could have lawyers cover for you on evicting people, but you can't have them cover up extended audio of you speaking personally about how you don't want black people around.

Is it even admissible?  I don't know how recording/privacy laws in California work, but other places it would not be usable.  Of course, different standards may apply due to it being civil and not criminal.  As weird and backwards as it may be, Sterling's shady past might be what helps him. The NBA can present other stuff as showing a history of stuff, but he can counter with the NBA knew about this other stuff and did nothing, which potentially sets a precedent.  What he did previously was worse.  If the NBA knew about it (they did) and did nothing (once again, they didn't), that implies tactic acceptance of his actions.

//It's screwed that the law can work this way, but I've seen it played this way before.


I've heard this point bantered around, and IANAL, but it seems that the legality of a recorded conversation in that state is irrelevant to further use.  The person who recorded it may be in legal trouble, but, the recording itself can be used as evidence in other legal matters where "it was recorded illegally" is no grounds for defense, you have to challenge based on the facts in the tape, (i.e. : Is that your client's voice?) and if can be proven it is, you're screwed if you said something damaging.  If I'm hearing the talk-radio people right.

I've never liked the anti-wiretapping laws in general, at least in private person-to-person conversations.  If you said it, then you said it, and I don't think you should get to hide behind a shield that pretends you didn't say it when there's a RECORDING of you saying it.  Don't want your words to be used against you? Keep silent, you have no right to brag and then essentially take it back.

But that's just me.
 
2014-05-12 03:43:56 PM  

Arkanaut: That's the other big difference -- this isn't a trial or a lawsuit, it's just a public relations nightmare. The NBA isn't worried about getting sued,


Oh, I'm fairly certain the NBA is worried about getting sued, which makes it into a trial or lawsuit.  You think it's a PR nightmare now, it could get much, much worse.  You get someone with deep pockets that has nothing to lose and nothing else to do, he could probably drag up some nasty stuff on many people across the NBA, from players to owners, to possibly even David Stern.

In the end he'll end up losing, but if he can take others down with him he probably would.  He spent 10's of thousands of dollars in legal fees to avoid paying a thousand dollar debt, he'll probably fight tooth and nail for this.

Without knowing the contract language in the owners' agreements it's impossible to say what the arguments could be, but I'm willing to bet that the language is vague enough that it would be challengeable, especially if he wants to play the example game and start airing dirty laundry.
 
2014-05-12 03:56:59 PM  

mjbok: Arkanaut: That's the other big difference -- this isn't a trial or a lawsuit, it's just a public relations nightmare. The NBA isn't worried about getting sued,

Oh, I'm fairly certain the NBA is worried about getting sued, which makes it into a trial or lawsuit.  You think it's a PR nightmare now, it could get much, much worse.  You get someone with deep pockets that has nothing to lose and nothing else to do, he could probably drag up some nasty stuff on many people across the NBA, from players to owners, to possibly even David Stern.

In the end he'll end up losing, but if he can take others down with him he probably would.  He spent 10's of thousands of dollars in legal fees to avoid paying a thousand dollar debt, he'll probably fight tooth and nail for this.

Without knowing the contract language in the owners' agreements it's impossible to say what the arguments could be, but I'm willing to bet that the language is vague enough that it would be challengeable, especially if he wants to play the example game and start airing dirty laundry.


Either way, I don't think the admissibility of the tapes matters. In any case, I think the tapes might actually not be illegal because supposedly Sterling had Stiviano record them for his memoirs or something, and so they would be consensual.
 
2014-05-12 04:13:45 PM  
I think (though I'm not positive) that the league banned him for what he said on those tapes, and for that alone, which is important.

If that is indeed what the league stated, that is problematic.  No matter how deplorable what he said was, it was a single incident/conversation, far below many of the crappy things he has done in the past.  How is saying something worse than doing something (slumlord racial stuff)?

When you have things that are vague worded like "conduct detrimental to the business of the NBA" it becomes challengeable.  Within that challenge is the optometrist measurement?  Is this better, worse, or about the same?  Having a racist past actually gives him a defense to litigate behind.  "These public actions/statements made previously are much worse, are they not?"  And then comes the thing the other owners/the NBA is afraid of:  the airing of dirty laundry.  Any possible thing said/done, etc. that can be found by his investigators will be broadcast for the world to see.  The NBA doesn't want this, the owners don't want this, but Sterling has absolutely nothing to lose.
 
2014-05-12 04:18:44 PM  
dywed88: I love how she made him say it. His apology amounts to "I did a horrible thing, but only because that biatch made me do it".

Feels his pain:

ll-media.tmz.com
 
2014-05-12 04:27:01 PM  
For the amount of shiat he's gotten away with, Sterling should be pleading Affluenza.
 
2014-05-12 04:45:17 PM  

LTRM35A2: Don't want your words to be used against you? Keep silent, you have no right to brag and then essentially take it back.


Everyone likes to use the dumbass line "act like you've been there before."

No one seems to be a fan of "better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
 
2014-05-12 04:53:42 PM  
It's not up to me.  It's up to the kind of corporate blowhards that people like him hire to help make the NBA owners more money.
 
rka
2014-05-12 04:54:52 PM  

mjbok: I think (though I'm not positive) that the league banned him for what he said on those tapes, and for that alone, which is important.


Highly doubtful.

There is no unringing of the bell. The NBA commish and owners heard what Sterling said. They could have heard it on tape, they could have heard it while taking a dump in the mens room. Doesn't matter. More importantly, they've heard what their sponsors, fans and players (who also have heard the tape) are willing to do.


They were not a party to making or releasing the recording so there is very little chance that the recording's origins or veracity would even come up in a Sterling v NBA case.

mjbok: When you have things that are vague worded like "conduct detrimental to the business of the NBA" it becomes challengeable.  Within that challenge is the optometrist measurement?  Is this better, worse, or about the same?


When given a speeding ticket, how often does the "but officer, I always speed here and never have been given a ticket before" defense work for you?

Fairness, swiftness and consistency in punishment is important when potty training your puppy or teaching your 2yr old not to hit playmates. It's not a legal defense for 80yr old NBA owners.
 
2014-05-12 04:58:21 PM  

rka: Fairness, swiftness and consistency in punishment is important when potty training your puppy or teaching your 2yr old not to hit playmates. It's not a legal defense for 80yr old NBA owners.


You don't like the argument of "They didn't punish him significantly before because they were afraid of a lawsuit, thus, this punishment can't hold up against a lawsuit?"
 
2014-05-12 05:37:36 PM  

rka: When given a speeding ticket, how often does the "but officer, I always speed here and never have been given a ticket before" defense work for you?


Not the same thing, though I see your point.  In your example I wasn't caught speeding.  In the example I provided there was no "getting away with it", these are all known examples of his history of asshattery.  Many lawsuits have been brought because someone was fired for something someone else was not previously fired for.
 
rka
2014-05-12 05:46:16 PM  

mjbok: Many lawsuits have been brought because someone was fired for something someone else was not previously fired for.


Labor law is a completely different beast than NBA bylaws as I'm sure you well know. If Sterling was a secretary in the front office the point would be more applicable.
 
2014-05-12 05:52:05 PM  

rka: Labor law is a completely different beast than NBA bylaws as I'm sure you well know. If Sterling was a secretary in the front office the point would be more applicable.


True, the problem is (as far as I know) the actual language of the ownership agreement is not known.  My point was merely that precedent matters.  Another crappy example.  If I live somewhere with a HOA and they don't give me any issues blasting loud music (or having a huge tree), they would have problems evicting me for playing not so loud music (or having a much smaller tree).
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report