Under the NBA constitution and by-laws the league can suspend or expel an owner (or anybody) for conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the league. Removing ownership rights is harder, and would be a drawn out affair. There are several bases stated in the by-laws that would justify removal of ownership (or a forced sale). This is where litigation would ensue. While all thirty NBA teams, including the Clippers, embraced Silver's findings, any basis to force the sale would be subject to litigation.

Sterling cares little for the by-laws as evidenced when he moved his team to LA without owner consent and was fined. He responded by suing the NBA.

To hate or fear others because of their race, religion, skin color, age, gender or sexual orientation is ipso facto irrational. Sterling is a prime example: a public racist who owns a NBA basketball team whose players, like those on the other teams, are overwhelmingly black.

What do you mean by that? Are some players blacker than others?

This is a serious discussion. Don't pollute it with nonsense like this.

One thing that struck me almost immediately when I heard about Sterling's comments was the hypocrisy on the Left.

You'll recall back during the Clinton fiasco with Monica Lewinsky, many lefties defended Clinton by saying that his personal flings didn't affect his ability to be U.S. president.

Now, one could make the same argument here - that Sterling's bonehead (and rather bizarre) racial beliefs don't really affect his ability to be the owner of an NBA team, little of which goes beyond writing checks.

While not defending Sterling's comments, it just goes to show the selective moral outrage in our society today, particularly by politically-correct driven liberals. They don't much value on fidelity in marriage so Clinton being an adulterer was no big deal to them. Being a racist, however, is almost worse than being child-molester in their book so they were out for a pound of flesh in this case.

This off base overgeneralization makes no sense, and stop saying you are not defending Sterling's comments. You are defending them and in the process condemning what you pereive to be "selective" outrage. As a left-leaning democrat, neither I nor anyone I know ever said they approved of Clinton's misconduct and his lying about it. The distinction about drawing a line between his personal life and his public life came when the idiots in the House impeached him. At that point, the question became whether or not clinton had committed a "high crime or misdomeanor" as is written in the Constitution. I and the United States Senate thought it did not.

The NBA is not part of the federal government. There is no right to free speech or opinion within the NBA because ownership of an NBA team is not something the Constitution grants. One of Sterling's statements was that he wrote the checks for the players, and thus paid for their houses, cars, etc. He omits that the players earn their living by playing the game and that he profits from it. Are they supposed to play for free? Does he think people come to see the owners and not the players? It is a plantation mentality pure and simple.

Your pitiful analysis is as bad as Rush Limbaugh's false claim that Sterling was a democrat who was being punished for not giving Obama enough money.

...Yes, I’m angry, too, but not just about the sins of Donald Sterling. I’ve got a list. But let’s start with Sterling. I used to work for him, back in 2000 when I coached for the Clippers for three months. He was congenial, even inviting me to his daughter’s wedding. Nothing happened or was said to indicate he suffered from IPMS (Irritable Plantation Master Syndrome). Since then, a lot has been revealed about Sterling’s business practices...

but he STILL wasn't fouled by Laimbeer in that finals game

Laimbeer's STILL a neanderthal .

I think he's still coaching in WNBA. Some local people constantly say he should be coaching in NBA. I think he alienated so many people that him head coaching in the NBA would be virtually impossible.

The Microwave! ESPN did a great 30-30 on the bad boys. Brought me back to my childhood. Was a great documentary

I turned thirty in 1989. I hate you

The Microwave! ESPN did a great 30-30 on the bad boys. Brought me back to my childhood. Was a great documentary

MikeyO - Whatever issues you have with pizzaboy and cheech better remain off these boards. You have to stop hounding them like a lost little puppy following his beloved master. Just stop it! You won't be told again.

You miss the point entirely. The damage that Sterling's exposed racism brings adversely affects the entire league and pollutes the brand, and his continued association with the NBA in any visible capacity, let aloneas an owner, would harm the economic and social integrity of the league.

The league has been built by minorities and has acquired an inclusive and ever-expanding global following. There's no room for mindset from an owner that is disgusted by having Blacks attend games.

By the way, if you think an owner's role is only about writing checks, you're misinformed. The owners are the driving force of league decisions on many aspects, including marketing and employment. A racist owner has no place in professional sports.

You're overreaching by comparing this with Clinton's affair with Lewinski, but I'm not surprised by the direction you would want to take this issue.
.

This off base overgeneralization makes no sense, and stop saying you are not defending Sterling's comments. You are defending them and in the process condemning what you pereive to be "selective" outrage. As a left-leaning democrat, neither I nor anyone I know ever said they approved of Clinton's misconduct and his lying about it. The distinction about drawing a line between his personal life and his public life came when the idiots in the House impeached him. At that point, the question became whether or not clinton had committed a "high crime or misdomeanor" as is written in the Constitution. I and the United States Senate thought it did not.

The NBA is not part of the federal government. There is no right to free speech or opinion within the NBA because ownership of an NBA team is not something the Constitution grants. One of Sterling's statements was that he wrote the checks for the players, and thus paid for their houses, cars, etc. He omits that the players earn their living by playing the game and that he profits from it. Are they supposed to play for free? Does he think people come to see the owners and not the players? It is a plantation mentality pure and simple.

Your pitiful analysis is as bad as Rush Limbaugh's false claim that Sterling was a democrat who was being punished for not giving Obama enough money.

I did not say that it was taken out of context. I stated that we all say things that could be taken out of context or there are things that we say in private that we would NEVER say in public. That includes us all. I am not defending this dipsh*& but what I am saying is that we should be judged by out public speech and actions. This guy was going to get an award from the NAACP for crying out loud. It was also said if that his racism was a known fact and was never made public like this. If that is true all of the feigned outrage is bs. Apparently everyone knew this man to be a closet klansman and were glad to work for or with him or take his money.

That being said, the release of these tapes may be against California law and the NBA is going to have a fight when it comes to forcing a sale. I hope he burns but it aint gonna be easy.

A lot of the outrage is, indeed, feigned. The fact that the new NBA commissioner actually went as far as to ban the guy for life shows the decision was largely driven by political correctness and pressure to appease the mostly black players. You'd have to have a cookcounty-like IQ to believe the punishment fits the crime here. Look at all the convicted athlete felons who are allowed to return to sports. Like I said, liberal-driven political correctness is quick to forgive all sorts of crimes and indiscretions but not racism.

Again, this is not to excuse Sterling's comments but to show the selective moral outrage and inconsistent punishments involved.