S/O Shaquille O'Neal and the NBA

[zoobie]

Being a jerk to one person is incomparable to Sterling's list of transgressions. Do we really expect the NBA to get involved every time an owner, part owner, or player hurts someone's feelings?

[SKL]

Shaq intentionally posted his insult of another human being on a public forum.

 

The other dude was having a private conversation with is ex-girlfriend that was never intended to be published where the offended individuals or anyone else would hear/see it.

 

Does that not matter?  To me it is very significant.

 

Shaq's apology occurred days later and only after criticism.  I don't know if the other dude apologized or not.  Either way an apology in response to backlash really isn't an apology, it's an attempt at CYA.

[SKL]

He didn't think it was real?  Is he an adult or not?  How many of those reading here have ever posted something like that, whether or not we thought a photo of a deformity was real?  I'm pretty sure I would have known better than that when I was 10.

[nmoira]

nm

[nmoira]

nm

 

[SKL]

Well if the standard is that you get X number of passes before you are accountable for hurtful speech, then I hope at least we are applying this standard across the board.  (Of course we are not.)

[nmoira]

I don't care enough about whatever this discussion is really about to involve myself.

 

nm

 

[StaceyinLA]

I'm really disappointed in Shaq. I haven't ever been a particular fan, but it just makes me sick that people would do such things.

 

I know this thread isn't about Sterling per se, but I did read a great op-ed by Kareem Abdul Jabbar regarding the Sterling incident, and his behavior in general. It was a great piece. Sterling should've been dealt with long ago. I'm gonna say that after all the reading I've done regarding the matter, I still find it odd that he finally got what was coming after an incident such as this (with the illegal taping). I'm wondering with all he's done over the years that was public knowledge, why it didn't happen much sooner. Methinks money may have had something to do with it, and that's just pathetic.

[LucyStoner]

Methinks money may have had something to do with it, and that's just pathetic.

Of course money has something to do with it. The NBA is a business. What is pathetic about a business doing business?

[poppy]

I've only been coming to these forums a short while, but I have been really disheartened and repulsed recently by some of what's posted.  It's very "us" versus "them", with "them" referring to black people. 

 

If you a white person accused of something bad and you immediately look for a correlating failure by a black person and try to make that the big headline, I would say your motives (intentional or not) are pretty suspect.

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

 

O'Neal did apologize. 

 

 

Perhaps because it seems O'Neal is truly repentent of his behavior and made the apologies of his own volition.  Big difference between that and that other NBA guy (whatever his name is).

 

Yep. Simply google Shaquille's name (don't even mention the incident) and a bunch of links about his apology will show up.

[SKL]

A google search also brings up reports that Sterling apologized.

 

Like I said, in both cases the apologies were well after the fact, after backlash, and required for CYA.  Thus I give weight to neither of them.

[Joanne]

The only similarity I see is that they both are involved in sports.

Beyond that, it is not comparable.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A google search also brings up reports that Sterling apologized.

 

Like I said, in both cases the apologies were well after the fact, after backlash, and required for CYA.  Thus I give weight to neither of them.

 

Just googled and I am not finding anything other than on satire sites.

[plumshadow]

Just googled and I am not finding anything other than on satire sites.

 

What?! Are trying to imply the source actually matters.....

[ChocolateReignRemix]

After some intense googling, I have found references to Sterling apologizing "for comments attributed to him", but at the same time he was denying that the recording released were him/accurate.

[umsami]

On a side note, I find it very impressive that Shaquille went back and finished his bachelor's degree, earned an MBA from the University of Phoenix, and even an Ed.D. from Barry University.  A friend posted this today on her Facebook page:

 

"When Shaquille O'neal was drafted into the NBA, he spent the first million that he earned within 30 minutes. O'neal then received a phone call from his banker, who scolded him, and told him that he would end up joining the list of former athletes who ended up broke if the current trend continued.

O'neal decided to sharpen up his education on business and finance. He returned to college, completing his Bachelor's degree, followed by his M.B.A, and lastly, his Ed.D. That's right, he is now Dr. Shaquille O'neal.

As of today, Shaq is the joint owner of 155 Five Guys Burgers restaurants, 17 Auntie Annie's Pretzels restaurants, 150 car washes, 40 24-hour fitness centers, a shopping center, a movie theater, and several Las Vegas nightclubs.

In addition to his business holdings, O'neal still earns $22 million per year (roughly $423,000 per week) from his endorsement deals with Arizona Creme soda, Icy Hot, Gold Bond, Buick, Zales, and at least a half dozen additional corporate sponsors. He is also a studio analyst for TNT.

In Shaq's own words, "It is not about how much money you make. The question is are you educated enough to KEEP it."

 

[SKL]

Well, I have some honest questions.

 

1.  Is it our business to know / control what ALL people say in the privacy of their own homes?  (One rule for all, no matter what color, how rich, past history, etc.)  Keep in mind that this includes you!  Whatever you may have said to your spouse/best friend about Bush, Obama, Limbaugh, Clinton, Palin, dumb people, fat people, effeminate men, etc. etc.

 

2.  If you hear someone privately say something rotten, which would be nothing but hurtful if heard by someone not present, then is it right or wrong to repeat it to the person who was not present?

 

3.  What are the requirements for an intentional, direct, public insult to be transformed into a non-event?

 

I gotta go for some hours so I will see you guys when I come back.

 

ETA, before I go, I want to be clear:  I am NOT saying Sterling does not deserve some kind of reaction to his attitude.  What I am trying to get at is that we should not have a double standard.  Everyone has some prejudices that they should not be proud of.  Everyone should have the same level of accountability for them should they somehow get laid out in the public view.

[Upward Journey]

I think it's very interesting given what was actually in the news in the last couple of days re the 'non-humane' death penalty. People want to talk about double standards ? Maybe they can talk about race and the justice system/prison/death penalty. There's a double standard actually worth white people talking about and getting hot under the collar about and actually doing something about.

 

The racism is in the undertone of 'But black people do bad stuff too!'. It's whiny, it's disconnected from what's important. it's superficial and it's all about making your own group/beliefs look better and protecting your own privilege.

 

 

This got me thinking.  I wonder what would happen if juries weren't allowed to see the person on trial OR know their race, until AFTER the verdict had been rendered?

[StaceyinLA]

Of course money has something to do with it. The NBA is a business. What is pathetic about a business doing business?

 

 

What is pathetic is they allowed him to go on for years demonstrating very racist, bigoted behavior to keep from losing an almighty dollar, then when he's close to retirement anyway, they take illegally taped information and use it to end his career.

 

He should've been gone LONG ago based on the NBA's rules of conduct. It's just a shame they let greed keep that from happening.

[StaceyinLA]

This got me thinking.  I wonder what would happen if juries weren't allowed to see the person on trial OR know their race, until AFTER the verdict had been rendered?

 

That would actually be really interesting. I'm sure with the media the way it is, it'd be almost impossible for that to happen, but wouldn't it be awesome if they could just present the case and evidence, and jurors make the call based solely on that? 

[Mrs Mungo]

they take illegally taped information and use it to end his career.

 

People keep saying this, but it is speculation right now. Her lawyer is saying that Sterling knew he was being recorded

[StaceyinLA]

People keep saying this, but it is speculation right now. Her lawyer is saying that Sterling knew he was being recorded

 

Either way, if all the comments about his past behavior are true, it's a shame the NBA let him stick around all these years due to what is surely greed on someone's part. 

[LizzyBee]

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2014/04/shaquille_oneal_calls_detroit.html

 

It's not making major headlines but Shaq publicly mocked a young disabled man and the NBA hasn't put anything out about reprimanding him. This is a huge issue, both what Shaq did and the very obvious double standard going on here. The fact that these two incidents are happening so closely together with such vastly different results is truly astonishing. Shaq is reprehensible and should be punished just as harshly by NBA officials as Sterling. Thoughts?

 

ETA: Shaquille O'Neal is part owner of the Sacramento Kings.

 

My husband told me about that and he was really upset that Shaq was pontificating about Sterling. Same thing with Snoop Dogg weighing in on Sterling in spite of his misogyny. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

 

[LizzyBee]

Spike Lee doesn't own a team. He doesn't do any hiring or firing or hold any player's livelihood in his hands. At this point, it seems like certain people are grasping at straws to make Sterling's bigotry look less bad.

 

I posted before I read other posts.  I certainly hope no-one thinks I am trying to excuse Sterling in any way. That is not my intent at all.  It's the (arguable) hypocrisy of some of the people commenting on the situation that we were discussing.

[poppy]

My husband told me about that and he was really upset that Shaq was pontificating about Sterling. Same thing with Snoop Dogg weighing in on Sterling in spite of his misogyny. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

 

He was really upset that black men had negative opinions about a high profile instance of racism?

That is what is upsetting about the Sterling case to him?

I would say that is odd.

[SKL]

I think she was saying there is hypocrisy in Shaq's expressed indignation over private racist comments when he just admitted to publicly mocking a person with a disability.

[mathnerd]

I think she was saying there is hypocrisy in Shaq's expressed indignation over private racist comments when he just admitted to publicly mocking a person with a disability.

In my child's K class in PS, they taught about "abilities awareness" and the 5 year olds (and some 4 year olds) were taught that when someone is disabled in any way, we as a society need to step up and help them, protect them and show empathy for them. I was a voluteer teacher for that event and we roleplayed many disability scenarios to teach kindness and empathy for the disabled. We also taught that hurting disabled people (with words or actions) was bullying.

 

When Shaq who is a famed basketballer, a future inductee into the NBA Hall of Fame, a owner of Sacramento Kings (an NBA team) and a seasoned and respected braodcaster hurts a disabled person openly and apologises after a fews days under pressure, I think that the NBA should do something about it. The delayed apology looks like he took the time to talk to his PR people to find out how to spin the story to his advantage and probably does not have real sympathy or empathy for the disabled - just Crocodile tears.

 

None of this has anything to do with Sterling. I am not saying Shaq should be forced to sell his stake in Sac Kings - I am saying that the comissioner should say that there is no room for bullying in the NBA.

[SKL]

Personally I think they would be justifiable in both cases to say "we find the statement/action of ___ to be offensive (or choose a better word).  The statements/actions of ___ in this matter do not represent the beliefs of our organization.  However, we do not control the private behavior of individuals in the NBA.  We do not have jurisdiction to punish such behavior."

 

And then it would be up to the players whether to strike or not.  I assume there are contractual obligations involved so they would be sued for choosing not to play the games to their utmost.  And there would be a lot of lawsuits going every which way, because (unfortunately IMO) there is an awful lot of money in the business of sports.  And lots of people would be out money, and lawyers would be the gainers.  Sterling himself would have been forking out a lot of cash in that scenario.

 

But they probably went in a back room and decided it would be easier to overstep their bounds on the Sterling matter.  Maybe they even paid Sterling a little kickback for taking it quietly, who knows.

 

As for the Shaq situation, who also knows whether the offended disabled guy got a little gift under the table, but either way, I'm sure they all heaved a sigh of relief as that problem went away relatively quietly.

 

Ultimately I really don't care what happened to Sterling as an individual.  He sounds like an all-around jerk and probably deserves worse than he got.  But I don't like the precedent set by having the organization declare that it has a right to control what people do and say in their private lives.  It stinks and one wonders what will be next.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Personally I think they would be justifiable in both cases to say "we find the statement/action of ___ to be offensive (or choose a better word).  The statements/actions of ___ in this matter do not represent the beliefs of our organization.  However, we do not control the private behavior of individuals in the NBA.  We do not have jurisdiction to punish such behavior."

 

And then it would be up to the players whether to strike or not.  I assume there are contractual obligations involved so they would be sued for choosing not to play the games to their utmost.  And there would be a lot of lawsuits going every which way, because (unfortunately IMO) there is an awful lot of money in the business of sports.  And lots of people would be out money, and lawyers would be the gainers.  Sterling himself would have been forking out a lot of cash in that scenario.

 

But they probably went in a back room and decided it would be easier to overstep their bounds on the Sterling matter.  Maybe they even paid Sterling a little kickback for taking it quietly, who knows.

 

As for the Shaq situation, who also knows whether the offended disabled guy got a little gift under the table, but either way, I'm sure they all heaved a sigh of relief as that problem went away relatively quietly.

 

Ultimately I really don't care what happened to Sterling as an individual.  He sounds like an all-around jerk and probably deserves worse than he got.  But I don't like the precedent set by having the organization declare that it has a right to control what people do and say in their private lives.  It stinks and one wonders what will be next.

 

You are simply incorrect.  The NBA has the right to sanction an owner, and the other owners have the right to force the sale of a franchise if the owner's behavior affects the league adversely.

[bettyandbob]

You are simply incorrect.  The NBA has the right to sanction an owner, and the other owners have the right to force the sale of a franchise if the owner's behavior affects the league adversely.

 

Absolutely. In order to own an NBA franchise you have to sign a contract with the NBA. The contract has statements that the owner's actions will not devalue other contracts the NBA has. As a result of Sterling's actions, the Clippers lost sponsors. Those sponsors pay money to both Sterling and the NBA. Sterling's actions probably had an effect on other sponsors around the league and league general sponsors.

 

Yes, it comes back to money. Sterling was in violation of his contract.

 

What I've read about Shaquille O'Neal does not appear to show he intended to make fun of the man. The explanation that he did not know that the man had a disability and naturally looked like that is plausible and given that there is no track record of past offenses, I suspect that's why the story was just let go. If, on the other hand, this was just one more thing  O'Neal did negatively toward persons with disabilities, I am sure disability rights groups would be all over it. And they aren't. I keep up with a few disability organizations and I haven't heard a thing. I would be expecting one of the groups to be calling for a boycott of Five Guys or some other thing O'Neal is involved in. I regularly hear about boycotting a movie or business based issues like this. Money is the main thing that people with power respond to, so boycotts of businesses and events and sponsors are the way advocacy groups go.

 

I kind look at the O'Neal situation like I do a situation with my neighbor a few months ago. She complained to me about how a third grader was interacting during her girl scout cookie sales. I stopped her said "you should know that the girl is only in third grade (she looks like a sixth grader) and she is autistic." With that information, my neighbor stopped, because she realized then that the girl actually was handling things well based on her abilities. What if, instead of complaining to me, she had gone to a girl scout event and complained about it. Or in some larger public forum.

 

O'Neal's behavior is stupider. He should know he should not act publicly without verifying the situation. It's like he was saying "I can make this face too" in some child's playground game. I remember in elementary school friends challenging eachother to make an ugly face. He didn't bother to find out the circumstances behind the picture of the man. It appears he made a false assumption. Very stupid. However, I never thought O'Neal was a person to take manners lessons from. Very early in his career he responded to complaints about his behavior off court (partying, etc), by saying he was a basketball player, not a role model and people should expect parents to be role models not basketball players.

[poppy]

I do not think it is a coincidence that a story abut Shaq is taking up a whole lot of indignation in right wing media right now.

 

Deflect:  "Well of course Sterling's racism is bad but [long indignant explanation about this minor story to make IT the headline instead]"  "Of course it's bad but [let's find a way to make this about SNOOP DOGG and Shaq instead".]

 

Deflect: "Well of course racism is bad but [long indignant explanation of the right to privacy!]"  Imagine if there was private footage of Obama saying something against white people. I do not think "right to privacy" would the buzzword in that conversation.

 

At least that's how it looks from where I'm sitting.