Knicks not in the clear

The NBA, under Stern's leadership, traditionally has gotten high marks for its diversity. Yet the commissioner has been criticized for not punishing the Knicks, owner James Dolan or coach Isiah Thomas after the organization was found liable in the sexual-harassment suit brought by the club's former vice president of marketing, Anucha Browne Sanders.

"It would be nice if the commissioner came out and said something and addressed that situation," says TNT analyst Reggie Miller, who played in the NBA for 18 seasons. "He could make a statement, be a calming influence on this."

Stern's failure to act is not in keeping with his reputation for swiftly handing out punishment to players and coaches.

"Should I bring the hammer before the appeal is decided and then give the hammer back if it's reversed?" Stern says. "In most of the cases where I've acted, the facts were undisputed. This one is a little trickier and is subject to appeal. I'm not going to go rushing in just because it would be politically correct to do so."

Does that mean hammer time could still be on the horizon? "I wouldn't term it that way. I haven't made a final determination one way or the other. I consider my options and powers wide open."

National Basketball Retired Players Association President Len Elmore says he understands why Stern has been slow to act. "The parties maintain they did nothing wrong," says Elmore, a lawyer and TV basketball analyst whose last NBA season was with the Knicks. "Until there is a final judgment, (a posting of) any appeal, there is nothing he can do. … It's not as cut and dry as (Dallas owner) Mark Cuban criticizing officiating."

What is clear is Stern would have preferred a swifter end to the three-week trial and doesn't think there was a winner.

"It's fair to say … it was imprudent for the case to go to a completed trial," he says. "I would have shared that with anyone who I spoke to prior to the trial and its verdict. It doesn't matter who you believe, and by all accounts the stories were sharply contrasting. It doesn't advance anyone's agenda. I don't mean to sweep it under the rug. Litigated truth is not the highest form of truth.

"I practiced law for a lot of years. I'd like to think one of the things I did best was settle. You litigate to a point, then you go in a back room and you settle because there is nothing to be gained by litigating it out."

Richard Lapchick, founder and director of the University of Central Florida's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, says Stern has done a good job setting the tone for diversity in the NBA. But Lapchick says ultimately clubs are responsible for creating climates in which their employees are comfortable.

Lapchick says he conducted a diversity training session for league office employees. Stern suggested all clubs undergo similar training.

"Some did. Some didn't," Lapchick says. "It's difficult for the league to get involved in a team thing like that."

Posted by djsunyc:

Knicks not in the clear
National Basketball Retired Players Association President Len Elmore says he understands why Stern has been slow to act. "The parties maintain they did nothing wrong," says Elmore, a lawyer and TV basketball analyst whose last NBA season was with the Knicks. "Until there is a final judgment, (a posting of) any appeal, there is nothing he can do. … It's not as cut and dry as (Dallas owner) Mark Cuban criticizing officiating."

Posted by BasketballJones:

"I practiced law for a lot of years. I'd like to think one of the things I did best was settle. You litigate to a point, then you go in a back room and you settle because there is nothing to be gained by litigating it out."

Stern is just plain wrong here. You just keep litigating, even when you don't have a good case because - well, it's only money, right? And it isn't even your money, so who really cares? Besides, it's fun spending time in court, testifying, and having your reputation dragged through the mud.

I mean, who wouldn't want to do that?

not a model of..uhh..intelligent management

Posted by islesfan:

Stern gets all worked up and takes action for Mark Cuban criticizing his referees, one of which was working with the mob to fix games, but he chooses to just sit there as Dolan and Isiah bring down one of his leagues flagship franchises.

Stern is a joke.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by mythfaze:

Posted by islesfan:

Stern gets all worked up and takes action for Mark Cuban criticizing his referees, one of which was working with the mob to fix games, but he chooses to just sit there as Dolan and Isiah bring down one of his leagues flagship franchises.

Stern is a joke.

He makes a good point when he says he hasn't ruled out action but needs the judgment to be "final" before doing anything. If Cuban says something and it is caught on tape, there is absolutely no disputing he did it and he can be disciplined accordingly. Here the Knicks deny any wrongdoing and though they have been found guilty, there is a chance the decision will be overturned. It isn't fair to criticize Stern for this until we see what he does (or doesn't) do after the appeal has been handled.

Since when is a Court of Appeals the standard that Stern uses for punishment? Did he wait for Donaghy to be arrested, much less agree to a plea bargain, before he acted on it?

Will whatever happens in appellate court make this any better for the league?