View Full Version : Can't the Pacers argue by using precedent?

11-22-2004, 12:39 PM
Look, I'm no legal expert but can't the Pacers argue that David Stern's ruling was excessive because it went far and beyond precedent?

Example - Vernon "Mad Max" Maxwell

Vernon Maxwell was spit on or cursed at, I can't remember which, and he went into the stands and punched a the fan. His penalty: <b>10 games</b> and a $20,000 fine.

Compare that to what Artest received (73 games) for basically doing the same thing. I understand that this issue and event was different and much worse because of the escalation that it caused but was it 7 times worse?

You could argue that Artest has had a history of misbehavior but so did Mad Max and his penalty pales too much in comparison.

In actuality, Artest ran into the stands but didn't throw a single punch until he was hit from behind by that fan in the white hat. What Stephen Jackson did was worse because he wasn't personally provoked before he decked that beer chucking fan.

Barkley went after a fan once and I don't think he even missed 5 games. An <b>unprovoked</b> Rodman kicked a cameraman and only received an 11-game suspension. Was Artest's actions 7 times worse than Rodman's whose past was more checkered than Artest's?

Another thing to consider is that Stern intimated that his penalty of Artest was based on his going into the stands AND his past incidents. So if Stern can consider the past actions of a player, why can't he consider the past penalties levied for similar incidents to other players?

Stern and the NBA league office have once again proved that they have no sort of structure to their disciplinary decisions. It is all based on emotion, the same knee-jerk reactions that caused this incident to begin with.

These penalties need a dose of levity and hopefully, the players union will be able to quickly provide it.

If anyone else, more informed on how precedent can be used, or can think of other incidents between fans and players please reply.