mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?

Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.

I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...

He could fight it and this case it is certainly new precedence since it was an illegally taped private conversation that led to the ban. They could not ban before for racial misconduct because Elgin Baylor lost the case but they can ban him from an illegally taped conversation? He may actually win the case (as far as just attending games).

It would probably end up in the state supreme court.

Don't see any chance of this happening though it would be a fascinating case and it could be a very important ruling.

As far as forcing him to sell the team, the NBA enacted their nuclear bylaws so that they can vote out an owner just for being detrimental to their business model and/profit margins (e.g. having a proxy vote to remove a CEO).

This whole thing is not just crazy but interesting because as you said there is new precedence here.... the whole thing about the banning, at least from my perspective was to remove him from all decision making regarding an NBA franchise, or associations... that was accomplished.. but if he sells the team, he no longer has power or influence over any NBA affairs, so how can it be justified keeping him from attending a game.. I can see as an owner because he would still be seen as having associations with the NBA...

Forcing him to sell the team, I can see that, the NBA is comprised of owners who all have vested interest in what other franchises do since they operate as one, although they operate separately. So forcing him to sell can be seen as protecting their investments.. I would call it conduct detrimental to the league... the same way they suspend players for conduct detrimental to the team...

Right ... but the way they came about the knowledge of the detrimental conduct was suspect (and illegal).

This was a clear violation of his first amendment rights and it could be as important as cases like miranda vs arizona.

This wiretap would obviously not stand up in court as far as prosecution but can it be used to ban someone from a league?

If the argument is that they can ban him anyway if they feel that he is detrimental or has racial tendencies without proof, then who cares if Elgin Baylors case held up or not?

Adam Levine is a lawyer and I am sure that he knows that this case is weak but he probably also knows that Sterling probably won't fight it.

I think that we are going down a dangerous road with allowing an illegal recording to dictate any sort of punishment. Forcing him to sell his team is within their right without the tape but the 2.5 million dollar fine and lifetime ban even post sale? There is no precedent for that.

Stiviano claims that Sterling was aware that he was being recorded. Sterling requested that she sign a confidentiality agreement, but she declined.

http://Http://m.tmz.com/#Article/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-audio-v-stiviano-recorded-clippers

Bonn1997 wrote:It's kind of funny and odd that he's now not allowed in a building that he owns.

He don't own it. He pays rent.

Thats actually funnier!

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Why would he want to attend the game as a civilian after all this despite being having the right?

That is not the point. Its a question of the law.

exactly, lets say he wants to one day go... does he have the right? by law? As an owner I guess he signs certain agreements that allows the league to enforce certain punishments as an owner, player or affiliate.. but once he is no longer any of those.. what does the law state?

The ban is definitely in effect and he is not allowed to go to games but what if he wanted to litigate? There would have to be existing case law or there would need to be new legislation.

“How do casinos get away with excluding card counters from playing blackjack”? “Isn’t this discrimination”?

The Nevada courts have allowed casinos to exclude card counters because technically they are private property, and under the ancient common law right a property owner could kick-off his property anyone for any reason, or even without a reason. Many players and lawyers believe that barring skillful players from playing blackjack is an unconstitutional form of discrimination. However, the Supreme Court prohibits discrimination only against persons who are members of “suspect classifications” based on race, creed, sex, national origin, age, or physical disability (i.e. card counters are not listed in the “suspect classifications”). Therefore, until a law is passed or blackjack players bring a challenge, casinos will continue the practice of barring card counters.

Damn that is interesting.. I always wondered how can you stop someone from counting cards? I mean even when we play poker, we count cards in a way, as to keep track of who has what?

I can understand as a fan, I am bound by certain rules when I buy a ticket, at that event.. but lets say before the game, I am at a bar no where near the arena, and i am yelling loud racial slurs.. can the NBA say to me, you can't come into the arena because of what you said at the bar in the bronx? I am not an owner, a player or have any association with the league..

sterling is being punished for his actions as a owner, once he gives that up, it will be interesting to see what happens afater that if he chooses to purse it..

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Why would he want to attend the game as a civilian after all this despite being having the right?

That is not the point. Its a question of the law.

exactly, lets say he wants to one day go... does he have the right? by law? As an owner I guess he signs certain agreements that allows the league to enforce certain punishments as an owner, player or affiliate.. but once he is no longer any of those.. what does the law state?

The ban is definitely in effect and he is not allowed to go to games but what if he wanted to litigate? There would have to be existing case law or there would need to be new legislation.

“How do casinos get away with excluding card counters from playing blackjack”? “Isn’t this discrimination”?

The Nevada courts have allowed casinos to exclude card counters because technically they are private property, and under the ancient common law right a property owner could kick-off his property anyone for any reason, or even without a reason. Many players and lawyers believe that barring skillful players from playing blackjack is an unconstitutional form of discrimination. However, the Supreme Court prohibits discrimination only against persons who are members of “suspect classifications” based on race, creed, sex, national origin, age, or physical disability (i.e. card counters are not listed in the “suspect classifications”). Therefore, until a law is passed or blackjack players bring a challenge, casinos will continue the practice of barring card counters.

Damn that is interesting.. I always wondered how can you stop someone from counting cards? I mean even when we play poker, we count cards in a way, as to keep track of who has what?

I can understand as a fan, I am bound by certain rules when I buy a ticket, at that event.. but lets say before the game, I am at a bar no where near the arena, and i am yelling loud racial slurs.. can the NBA say to me, you can't come into the arena because of what you said at the bar in the bronx? I am not an owner, a player or have any association with the league..

sterling is being punished for his actions as a owner, once he gives that up, it will be interesting to see what happens afater that if he chooses to purse it..

sort of ... counting cards in poker you are calculating odds and implied odds based on 1 deck and the number of cards that you see. This is not that difficult with practice.

With blackjack by counting low cards and high cards that you see that perhaps can give you a couple of pct point advantage. Its very hard to do without a counter. Most people cannot maintain a count in their heads. Its too fast and too many cards in too many decks.

I have an uncle who was banned for counting back in the 80's and the casino hire him to spot card counters since they were not very good at it at the time.

If a guy was screaming racial slurs in a bar near the game and it was broadcast on live television, I assume that they can deny him entry based on this ruling.

I don't think there is any chance to pursue it. He has already hurt the black community as well as the jewish community (to a lesser extent). I think that he will be advised to walk away but who knows, he is kinda crazy.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:It's kind of funny and odd that he's now not allowed in a building that he owns.

He don't own it. He pays rent.

Thats actually funnier!

Oh OK.
He's paying rent on a building he's not allowed in! And the man who banned him, Silver, can enter his (rented) building any time he wants to.

Maybe he could stop paying the rent and get them evicted?