I find this to be really interesting for a few reasons.

 

First, if you dont like a group of people but dont treat them any differently, are you still a racist?  Obviously Sterling has a reputation outside of basketball but just for a moment, lets look at only his career with the Clippers.  As others have pointed out, he has hired more black head coaches than many/most other teams.  He had a black GM for 20+ years.  Has hired a number of black executives.  And as far as we can tell has paid fair market value for his players and has probably overpaid for some as well.  So from a business point of view, while he may personally dislike black people, you could argue he hasnt discriminated against them.  So I ask philosophically, if you dont like a group of people, but still treat them equally, are you still a racist?  And if yes, is being racist a crime based on that example?  Is it even an offense? 

 

Second, I find the ownership side of this interesting as well.  Sterling "owns" the Clippers but clearly only has as many rights as the other owners and the board allows.  And as has been reported, the owners will have the ability to vote him out of his "ownership" of the Clips.  How far can the owners take this power?  Lets say hypothetically Mark Cuban creates the best executive team which hires the best set of players and they run off 6 straight titles... and not to mention he rubs all the other owners the wrong way.  Can they collectively get together and vote him out just because they dont like him?  By what definition can you vote someone out?  I've read the owners could argue that Sterling will negatively impact their business.  Do they have to prove that?  And if so in what way?  You could argue that some players may boycott although how do you prove that?  And even if they did how long would a boycott once their paychecks quit hitting the bank?  The Clippers may lose some sponsorship deals but how would that impact other teams?   Maybe they could argue the NBA would lose sponsorships.  But there are a lot of "ifs" and "scenarios" in there.  Seems like that would be difficult to prove.  I've also read the owners have some kind of morality clause but who defines that?  There are have been a lot of comments/actions(as youll see in the below link) that seem just as, if not moreso, offensive as what Sterling said.  So is "morality" as the NBA defines it based on nothing more than what draws the most negative attention?  So in essence there is no morality clause?

 

Funny, but telling, article on what gets you banned in the NBA and more importantly what doesnt.  I've always enjoyed the story of teammates pulling guns on each other in the locker room.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sport...by-the-NBA

---