PDA

View Full Version : Arbitrator's comments on Artest, Fair?



Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 08:24 AM
The only thing I would say to the Arbitrator, is those two suspensions were two years ago, and the suspension he rec'd from the incident in Miami had nothing to do with anger management, certainly the one in NY did. 73 games is just too much. The arbitrator makes a good case for the suspensions to be maybe 40 games, even 50 games.

Overall I am surprised the arbitrator is using the players history as one of his major criteria



http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/204270-9366-179.html



December 23, 2004


Excerpts from arbitrator Roger Kaplan's ruling on an appeal of the suspensions issued by NBA commissioner David Stern to Indiana Pacers players Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson and Anthony Johnson for their roles in a brawl with fans at a Nov. 19 Pacers-Pistons game.



On Ron Artest, suspended for the rest of the season:

"By entering the stands, Artest precipitated one of the ugliest brawls in NBA history. It is generally understood and indisputable that the riot that ensued was one of the worst, if not the worst, in the history of sports."

"Artest's complete NBA record must be considered. When his past record is closely examined, it shows that Artest has been suspended for 15 games during his career. Aside from flagrant fouls, his other two suspensions dealt with similar problems, anger management. If this was Artest's first offense, his argument for mitigation of the severity of his penalty might be more compelling. However, I cannot discount his previous suspensions, which in any light, are serious. Commissioner Stern had just cause to suspend Artest for the remainder of the NBA season."




On Jermaine O'Neal, suspended for 25 games (reduced to 15 by the arbitrator):

"The videotape shows that when O'Neal was attempting to enter the stands and rescue his teammates, an unidentified person grabbed him around the neck from behind. . . . I cannot fault O'Neal for attempting to free himself from an unidentified person whose hands were around his neck. He described the chaotic situation at that point in time as 'crazy' and a 'complete riot.' When asked whether he attempts to avoid trouble, O'Neal responded that he is a leader and a captain of his team. . . . When asked why he hit the spectator, O'Neal answered as follows: 'Because I felt he was threatening Anthony Johnson's livelihood . . . And that's a question you have to ask yourself, that when you start to see fans come on to the court, let alone in the stands hitting players, when they come on the court, then it becomes a scary situation.' "

"O'Neal's previous conduct in the NBA is vastly different from Artest's. His career in the NBA has been a positive one. He is the recipient of a couple of awards attesting to his character, community involvement and citizenship. His one punch of a spectator, while excessive, was clearly out of character. . . . On balance, commissioner Stern's penalty of 25 games is excessive. I reduce O'Neal's penalty to 15 games."



On Stephen Jackson, suspended for 30 games:

"Although Jackson testified that he had sought to bring Artest back to the court, the videotape shows conclusively that he did not try to do so initially. . . . He entered the stands swinging his fists at several fans. Rather than attempt to bring Artest's altercation to a conclusion, Jackson's conduct exacerbated the situation. It cannot be said that Jackson acted as any kind of a peacemaker. . . . Stern had just cause to suspend Jackson for 30 games."

able
12-23-2004, 08:28 AM
I answered that one extensively here:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=119629&postcount=192

and suffice to say Mr. Kaplan and I differ of opinion.

Peck
12-23-2004, 08:39 AM
I know I'm going to regret this ;) but I have to ask.

Why shouldn't previous actions & suspensions be taken into account here?

able
12-23-2004, 08:53 AM
Why would you regret that question?

If they bare an important part of the matter at hand they should partially be counted as a charachter witness, not to add to the punishment, sentence for those was already passed and served, adding time now based upon earlier infractions and certainly the flagrants, which are at best discutable at the best of times, increases the punishment for the original infraction without appeal options to that.
He was not asked to see whether Ron was punished severly enough in the past.

What worries me is that the general opinion displayed in the ruling is one of insufficient depth and factual background.
Adding Ron's priors and pointing to a "past" is almost saying: "I can't find a single reference to why the penality should be so severe so I add some "intangibles" to "allow" for that decision"
Certainly if you point out a "anger management problem" you are insinuating that Ron is a violent person, which is not the case, he has never before hurt a human being to our knowledge and a shove under the basket during play does not account as such, surely if that was the case then Rodman would have had several years suspension and others getting in to fights more frequent would to, however that is not the case
Add to that the omitting of Ron's "off court behaviour/community work" as is so eloquently done in the JO case just leaves a bad taste to the ruling.

I feel pretty confident that a judge would overturn this decision if it was contended (or if it was possible to do so) "reason, facts and not fiction should determine accountability, precedent and habit should determine the punishment"

If you exceed the speedlimit with regularity you lose your license, not your life.
(NO reckless endangerment does NOT count, that is another subject! See the difference?)

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 08:53 AM
I know I'm going to regret this ;) but I have to ask.

Why shouldn't previous actions & suspensions be taken into account here?

Peck, the only previous suspension that was as a result of anger management issues took place as a result of the incident in NY. So when the arbitrator says that Artest has a history of anger manaement issues that led to two suspensions, I submit that is a false statement.

Now to your more general point, as to why past history should not be taken into account. First, you have to accurately depict what the past history is. Second, as Able mentioned it seems to me that Artest is in effect being tried for crimes where he has served his sentence and were two years ago.

In order for the Arbitrator to use past suspensions as the basis for anything, he should go back and investigate what led to the suspensiuons, maybe those were unjust.

Seems like he is basing things on the suspensions rather than the acts committed

able
12-23-2004, 08:57 AM
Peck, the only previous suspension that was as a result of anger management issues took place as a result of the incident in NY. So when the arbitrator says that Artest has a history of anger manaement issues that led to two suspensions, I submit that is a false statement.

Now to your more general point, as to why past history should not be taken into account. First, you have to accurately depict what the past history is. Second, as Able mentioned it seems to me that Artest is in effect being tried for crimes where he has served his sentence and were two years ago.

In order for the Arbitrator to use past suspensions as the basis for anything, he should go back and investigate what led to the suspensiuons, maybe those were unjust.

Seems like he is basing things on the suspensions rather than the acts committed



MAMA MAMA someone understands what I'm saying!!!!!!!!!


:D

Thanks UB, nail on the head!

Peck
12-23-2004, 09:12 AM
I feel pretty confident that a judge would overturn this decision if it was contended (or if it was possible to do so) "reason, facts and not fiction should determine accountability, precedent and habit should determine the punishment"

If you exceed the speedlimit with regularity you lose your license, not your life.
(NO reckless endangerment does NOT count, that is another subject! See the difference?)

But didn't you also feel confident that the arbitor would overturn the suspensions as well?

Actually as of now isn't the whole Artest thing dead & done? Stern ruled, which would have stood either way IMO. The arbitor agreed. So it's over.

I know you are going to say board of gov. but let me lay that to rest right now.

If the board of gov. over ruled Stern, which they won't do but I'll get to that in a min., then there would be what we in America call a constitutional crisis. Because I am certain that Stern would resign right on the spot & as I've tried to explain to you over & over the public sentiment (outside of sports agents, athaletes & Pacers fans) is overwhelmingly on the side of Stern. He is a hero over here because of the actions he took. So that would lead to a P.R. nightmare for the N.B.A.

Now here is why the board of gov. wouldn't rule against him. Even if they didn't like his decision (btw most of them did) they want the commish to have that kind of power. It is a pawn in the game of negotiations with the players. They want Stern there because he is a powerfull figure & has made them all very very rich over the years. As I said, he is considered the best comish in all of sports right now & the owners love him.

I was stunned when the Simons came out with a statement against him so I have no idea if they will attempt to push this through or not. I would advise against it.

My guess is, the court will rule that Kaplan had no authority. J.O.'s suspension will be upheld & then a backdoor deal will be attempted.

However if the Simons go to the board, which btw they sit on, then all deals are off & J.O. will be back when the suspension ends.

Face it guys, this is your battleship Missouri. It's time to come before general Stern & sign the unconditional surrender. He dropped two atom bombs on our islands & we are no longer able to continue to fight against the coming swarm.

It's time to face the unfaceable & bear the unbearable. :)

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 09:18 AM
Hope we can go .500 in the next ten games before JO comes back

Face it - the way the CBA is written, we were screwed from day one. That little Napolean has too much power - should it be reviewed in the CBA, hell yes! But as the CBA stands now - we are and always have been... screwed.

indygeezer
12-23-2004, 09:31 AM
I agree Peck. I've said elsewhere that I thought the Simon's would put up a half-hearted arguement for the fans sake but that they agree with Stern's total authority. THey are not about to try to overturn him at the BoG.

able
12-23-2004, 09:38 AM
But didn't you also feel confident that the arbitor would overturn the suspensions as well?

hmm confident? somewhat, perhaps that is the main reason why I am so dissapointed in the ruling and it's wording ( at least those parts I read )
though I think my reasoning against the ruling is more sound then the ruling itself, that is a risk you take with arbitration, sometimes the outcome is unsuspected but you are toast anyway.


Actually as of now isn't the whole Artest thing dead & done? Stern ruled, which would have stood either way IMO. The arbitor agreed. So it's over.

I know you are going to say board of gov. but let me lay that to rest right now.

If the board of gov. over ruled Stern, which they won't do but I'll get to that in a min., then there would be what we in America call a constitutional crisis. Because I am certain that Stern would resign right on the spot & as I've tried to explain to you over & over the public sentiment (outside of sports agents, athaletes & Pacers fans) is overwhelmingly on the side of Stern. He is a hero over here because of the actions he took. So that would lead to a P.R. nightmare for the N.B.A.

The latter part of that statement is not what I read, even Montieth wrote last week that an overwhelming majorit of the public thinks Artest got a bad deal, but again, that is something I can not acount for, I am not in touch with all of the world in a sense that I can make an accurate assesment of that.


Now here is why the board of gov. wouldn't rule against him. Even if they didn't like his decision (btw most of them did) they want the commish to have that kind of power. It is a pawn in the game of negotiations with the players. They want Stern there because he is a powerfull figure & has made them all very very rich over the years. As I said, he is considered the best comish in all of sports right now & the owners love him.

I was stunned when the Simons came out with a statement against him so I have no idea if they will attempt to push this through or not. I would advise against it.

Now that "stunned" is something you and I have in common, so was I and I am sure that DW was everything but happy with that, though I appreciate the sentiment, it kind of played the hand before the cards were dealt.
I am not sure that they do not have "other" ideas we might not have thought of, perhaps a leverage as owners they hold, I have honestly no idea here, outside of the appeal to the BoG which I already several times mentioned as "shaky" at best, your reasoning only makes that more solid.


My guess is, the court will rule that Kaplan had no authority. J.O.'s suspension will be upheld & then a backdoor deal will be attempted.

The first part I must be fairly honest in, without reading the entire ruling I can not confirm or deny that guess.
Do however read the CBA and be aware that "playing-court" (the EXACT wording) is a VERY restricted term, but I would hold more value to the exceptions that the CBA allows for larger monetary impacts.
It all depends what Kaplan took as a basis for this perceived jurisdiction.
It is however the most important point in the matter, overlooked by most, since it gives Stern a good deal in the upcoming CBA negotiations or it gives the union one, all depending on the outcome.
IF the judge says Kaplan had jurisdiction then the matter becomes a moot point in the negotiations except for limiting it in a certain way for which Stern needs to barter, if it is ruled out then the PA needs to barter because their members will never accept a no appeal options as exists now which means they will have to give in on other points, that is why this point is so important to both parties and that is why I never doubted a court case would ensue.


However if the Simons go to the board, which btw they sit on, then all deals are off & J.O. will be back when the suspension ends.

Face it guys, this is your battleship Missouri. It's time to come before general Stern & sign the unconditional surrender. He dropped two atom bombs on our islands & we are no longer able to continue to fight against the coming swarm.

It's time to face the unfaceable & bear the unbearable. :)

hrmph, yes that might be so true, but does not make me any more happy.

I said the BoG was a long shot, which had several reasons to "fail" now in actual fact it is up to the Pacers/Simons what they want to do, and to the BoG (I am sure the Simons would "feel" the other owners out before going there) if the matter ever gets there.
I partially buy into the constitutional crisis scnario but on the other hand have the scenario of a lot of hard-nosed businesmen with obnoxious amounts of money that do not really like it if an employee gets to much power, something they might consider the case in Stern's case, one never knows when a palace revolution is planned and who knows this is their way to get rid of Stern cheap or curtail him, I simply do not know any of the owners personally and am sure I can not speak for any of them. So whether they agree with the punishment or see the danger of this kind of stuff happening to their own stars is beyond me.

In all, we will have to wait till tonight to know more, and if the case is thrown out or not, tomorrow for further statements from the Pacers/Simons.
Then we might get an idea of what they are going to do if anything, though I expect them to at least "plea" with the Commish for some leniency in the Artest case, so a return around the end of Feb becomes possible.

Frankly whatever we say now, except for judging what was done up and untill now, is nothing more then looking at the tea-leaves.

DisplacedKnick
12-23-2004, 09:43 AM
Being as I consider the arbitrator to have ruled absolutely correctly (other than I think JO's should have been 10, not 15) maybe I shouldn't comment.

However how can you not say Artest's Miami suspension was anger-related? He flipped the crowd a double-bird and stalked the Miami bench (was lucky nobody like Mourning was there or he'd have been torn up).

At the time I saw that as pretty close to the NY situation. In NY the Pacers lost a close game because Sprewell took Ron into the post on ISO's and repeatedly made him his *****.

In Miami Caron Butler was doing the same thing, he got out of control, flexed in front of the Heat bench and then flipped off the crowd.

Not sure how you can say that's not anger related - I guess you could say flashing the bird's a sign of peace and joy but I don't usually interpret it that way.

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 09:46 AM
Artest is gone - no 'plea' will help - these hopes are falsely based. We need to get over that and say... wait until next year! So it comes way too early this year, but the season was robbed by Napolean - the sooner you realize that the sooner you can deal with the pain. Maybe we can start a 12 step program for the Digest.

indygeezer
12-23-2004, 09:52 AM
Listening to ESPN radio and the national call-in shows, I was amazed at how 99% of the callers felt that JO and Jax BOTH deserved STIFFER penalties than they got. It is felt that even if he was on the court, the fan didn't deserve to be slammed by JO as he was and if JO hadn't slipped he would have hurt the guy badly and we'd be talking HUGE bans then. I can see that point. So we must realize that we aren't exactly impartial in our judgements.

Ya know, if an appeal to the BoG is available, and if Stern's power is being called into question, why hasn't Mark Cuban appealed some of his big fines? I just think that appeal is left as a "poison pill" to be used only if the COmmish is caught in some illegal or underhanded dealing. Say it were found that he had worked with the NBA refs to create a 4 point shot for LJ and absolute proof was in hand. Then the Simons would go to the Bog, appeal the situation, and have Stern fired. But it is not meant to be used willy-nilly.

Doug in CO
12-23-2004, 10:02 AM
Stern just has way too much power - it is sickening

Alabama-Redneck
12-23-2004, 10:12 AM
I really do not know how I feel other than confused. I have read the ruling, the reasons for the suspensions and Kaplan's reasons for upholding two of the three.

If this is factual and a precedent has been set regarding past actions and suspension being used for future suspensions, then I pity Rasheed Wallace because the next "T" he receives will cost him 20-25 games per his past record.

Now, if that is not the case, then we know all this verbage about past history is BS.

:confused:

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 10:13 AM
However how can you not say Artest's Miami suspension was anger-related? He flipped the crowd a double-bird and stalked the Miami bench (was lucky nobody like Mourning was there or he'd have been torn up).

At the time I saw that as pretty close to the NY situation. In NY the Pacers lost a close game because Sprewell took Ron into the post on ISO's and repeatedly made him his *****.

In Miami Caron Butler was doing the same thing, he got out of control, flexed in front of the Heat bench and then flipped off the crowd.

Not sure how you can say that's not anger related - I guess you could say flashing the bird's a sign of peace and joy but I don't usually interpret it that way.


I thought Ron was just "clowning" around in Miami. He acted stupidly but not in a rage of anger.

DisplacedKnick
12-23-2004, 10:23 AM
I thought Ron was just "clowning" around in Miami. He acted stupidly but not in a rage of anger.

Well, I'm not sure "rage of anger" would even express the camera incident - I'd call it more on the lines of "acted out of frustration."

Miami it was more of a psych job - he'd been getting thrashed by Caron through the 3rd quarter (locked him down in the 4th when the Pacers pulled away), he took it to the basket, was fouled and hit the shot, stalked the Heat bench, started getting booed, hit the FT and then flipped off the crowd going back on defense.

I guess you could call it clowning around - but it also showed some hostility. It's also part of a pattern of bad behavior brought on due to a lack of emotional control.

Manuel
12-23-2004, 10:29 AM
I am so disappointed. I loose all respect for the arbitrator when I read that "He(Jackson) entered the stands swinging his fists at several fans."

Not only is this not accurate, but obviously Mr. Kaplan didn't even bother to analyze the situation and look at it in a objective manner. Everything else he said loses credence with me.

able
12-23-2004, 10:30 AM
Rim, If you want to call flipping the bird an agressive act then I am sure 92% of the British public needs to get some anger management classes.

Sorry but but the only thing remotely connected to "anger management" in Ron's past for which the NBA has punished him is the NY incident, which was a CAMERA and not a human being, something that is very important in the case.
Another "oversight" is the fact that the guy with the anger management problem did NOT wallop the guy in the stands, but grabbed him, asking WHO, no pummeling, no flying fists, NOTHING of the kind.

Now the guys on the court were so clearly on the attack towards Ron that even the DA in Michigan decided he has NO case whatsoever in that instance, whereas he has one against JO for that one.

How anyone can still maintain that Ron got what he deserved is beyond me.
Punishment for going into the stands: previous cases make the precedent, several, most importantly Vern Maxwell, 10 games, exception: Ron did NOT hit the fan, Maxwell did, mitigating circumstance; reasonable 5 games.
For going into the stands not set penalties are listed, but again, precedent says 5 - 10 games.
New times, priors, all in consideration please quote case litigation if you think you have a case to show where he should get more.
All the cases quoted that are mildly comparible, none show suspensions of more then 15 games.
This should be strengthened by the community work Ron does, though not (yet) recignised by "rewards" for this behaviour it is well known that Ron does a lot for charity in many forms, not at least by spending lots of time and money for the less fortunate and the people in his old neighbourhood. (What goes for JO goes for Ron, precedent is at the end of the day an equal opportunities matter)

There is NO circumstance that justifies in any way the excessive nature of this suspension, whereas it is understandable that Jax got 30 since he hit fans, made an agressive stance in the stands, and (according to the arbitrator) did not go in to "be a peace maker"

Now you can make a case that Ron went into the stands first and therefore should be punished more severely so again, 30 games seems a precedent "setting" amount of games, that can be even argued against.

However, I have NOT read the full ruling and do not know if there is more upon which the lenght of the suspension is based, but if there isn't then I can only say that it is a disgrace for arbitration in general.

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 10:47 AM
here is another excerpt on the ruling. Found this additional paragraph in USA Today.

This makes no sense to me either. If I am reading this correctly, Kaplan is saying that if Ron had done the exact same thing he did but if everything around Artest would have been calmer, Ron would not have been suspended for as long as he is. So if the chair wasn't thrown, if Ben's brother did not attack, if two idiots along with several others had not gone onto the floor, if there weren't 5 murders in the city of Detroit that night.......

Does this make any sense. Why not judge Artest's actions. I would have more respect for Kaplan's decision if he just said, Artest was the first player to go into the stands and therefore he needs to be suspended for 73 games. Sorry for the rant, here it is




........."The union argued that the Vernon Maxwell suspension in 1995 should act as precedent for the Artest penalty issued here. It is true that Maxwell was suspended for 10 games when he entered the stands and hit a spectator. However, the similarities between the two incidents end there. ... What happened in Maxwell's incident is not nearly as severe and does not come close to the unprecedented brawl between players and fans that occurred in Detroit."...............................


__________________________________________________ __________

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 11:02 AM
I recall Ron running-into a Miami player, I believe it was Butler but I've slept since then, when both were already a couple of steps out-of-bounds, sending the guy tumbling over a few rows of spectators. If not "anger", it was at least one of the cheapest shots I've seen. Riley was right, Ron should've been ejected then and there, and IIR the order of events correctly, then we might not have ever seen the double-fingered-salute and bicep flex.

Clowning around? My butt. He was spinning, out of control...

I don't care what you call it: his repeated inability to control himself when the pressure is on *has* to be a factor here. If you're going to ever give 'partial credit' to someone like JO who displayed bad judgement but really has no history then you have to consider that with Ron, we keep having these conversations on a regular basis.

It doesn't matter how much he 'grows up' between each incident if the next incident is always worse that the previous one. He's the classic 'habitual criminal' - its just that his crimes are against his team or the NBA's goodwill - not a criminal statute. So not only is it difficult for Stern and Kaplan to ignore it, but they would also get an unconscionably light punishment, considering the primary perpretrator was Ron, if they did find a way to ignore it.

Let's put it this way, if Ron played for any other team, 90% of the rest of you would agree with Kaplan's decision to uphold Stern's punishment.

Even without the NBA's testimony, the third-party arbitrator found Ron to be a menace to (society) basketball, and chose to uphold his punishment. What's is it going to take to convince you guys??

able
12-23-2004, 11:06 AM
This was in the excerpts I posted above I commented on that also.


Quote:

"The union argued that the Vernon Maxwell suspension in 1995 should act as precedent for the Artest penalty issued here. It is true that Maxwell was suspended for 10 games when he entered the stands and hit a spectator. However, the similarities between the two incidents end there. ... What happened in Maxwell's incident is not nearly as severe and does not come close to the unprecedented brawl between players and fans that occurred in Detroit."


Indeed the similarities end with the punch Vernon Maxwell threw.
Ron never punched anyone before two idiots came on the court and attacked him, this almost makes me want to shout, get your facts straight!
What he in concreto says here is that Since the Maxwell punchup did not end up in a brawl/riot there is no simularity, that statement in itself is nonsense, what the Maxwell case shows is that public reactions are different and that the mob in Auburn Hills reacted different then most other fans would have done. That however is not something that can be the foundation under a 730% increase in punishment's severity.
It also fails to mention at any moment that Ron never hit the spectator in the stands, not once, something that WOULD make the comparison between Maxwell and Artest fail.

and added reasoning above in this thread.

able
12-23-2004, 11:16 AM
I recall Ron running-into a Miami player, I believe it was Butler but I've slept since then, when both were already a couple of steps out-of-bounds, sending the guy tumbling over a few rows of spectators. If not "anger", it was at least one of the cheapest shots I've seen. Riley was right, Ron should've been ejected then and there, and IIR the order of events correctly, then we might not have ever seen the double-fingered-salute and bicep flex.

Clowning around? My butt. He was spinning, out of control...

I don't care what you call it: his repeated inability to control himself when the pressure is on *has* to be a factor here. If you're going to ever give 'partial credit' to someone like JO who displayed bad judgement but really has no history then you have to consider that with Ron, we keep having these conversations on a regular basis.

It doesn't matter how much he 'grows up' between each incident if the next incident is always worse that the previous one. He's the classic 'habitual criminal' - its just that his crimes are against his team or the NBA's goodwill - not a criminal statute. So not only is it difficult for Stern and Kaplan to ignore it, but they would also get an unconscionably light punishment, considering the primary perpretrator was Ron, if they did find a way to ignore it.

Let's put it this way, if Ron played for any other team, 90% of the rest of you would agree with Kaplan's decision to uphold Stern's punishment.

Even without the NBA's testimony, the third-party arbitrator found Ron to be a menace to (society) basketball, and chose to uphold his punishment. What's is it going to take to convince you guys??


Arguments that go beyond opinion and start touching facts, that leavfe the ifs and whens behind and solely look at what is there to judge.

If my mother was not born neither would I, however I am here and only the latter is fact.

The second that hard facts are brought into the equation instead of soft-spin I am willing to give way and say; "now there's a reasonable base for the decision and the outcome of the appeal" I was looking for it, can not find it and must therefore conclude that I'm a lousy reader or that they'er simply not there.

If this was a case before a judge against jay's_dad@sectionXXX Jay would not be convinced if the judge said that the suspect was sentenced to dead because he played with his willy when he was 14, which shows that he has a history of sexual abuse and therefore the burglary was the source of the rise of rapes in the Andes (mountains) and for that reason alone the deadpenalty was justified.

Not the case itself but the reasoning behind it.......

***Author's note***
To the best of my knowlege there is no such figure as Jay's_dad@SectionXXX this figure only exists in my felloneous mind (yes it's warped to) and bares NO resemblence whatsoever to the person known as Jay's_Dad@Section204, amy such resemblence only exists in your brain and for that you should be prosecuted and sentenced to begin with.

The mere thought!

nuff said.

:D

Alabama-Redneck
12-23-2004, 11:33 AM
Even without the NBA's testimony, the third-party arbitrator found Ron to be a menace to (society) basketball, and chose to uphold his punishment. What's is it going to take to convince you guys??
I am convinced that the suspensions are going to stand. Therefore, they must be correct. All I am asking is for future suspensions and fines to be administered in the same context and if they are not, then these are not correct.

:cool:

able
12-23-2004, 11:35 AM
Redneck, I like your reversed logic, want to bet it is not going to happen?

(i.e. the punishment is incorrect)

Alabama-Redneck
12-23-2004, 11:38 AM
Redneck, I like your reversed logic, want to bet it is not going to happen?

(i.e. the punishment is incorrect)
There is no way it will happen with Stern protecting his "favorites" :mad:

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 12:17 PM
I think Ben Wallace has some anger management issues also.

able
12-23-2004, 12:43 PM
Wanna bet we can come up with a list a page long with players with that same problem and that would have reacted in a similar fashion?

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 12:43 PM
I am convinced that the suspensions are going to stand. Therefore, they must be correct. All I am asking is for future suspensions and fines to be administered in the same context and if they are not, then these are not correct.

:cool:

Agreed.

But I suspect the new CBA will do a better job of addressing this issue.

I can see Billy Hunter at the bargaining table now, asking for an "ala carte" menu.

"So, if spitting on a fan is 4 games, calling a fan is 'dirty m-f'er' is 3 games, and calling the 'ho' sitting next to him a 'fat beeyatch" is 2 games, is the 'package deal' more or less than a nine-game suspension?"

;)

able
12-23-2004, 12:44 PM
hmm wonder what farting comes in at and are there gradients in noise-ratio and smell?
Is a creeper more or less then a banger?

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 12:46 PM
I think Ben Wallace has some anger management issues also.
I can't think of anything he's done other than over-react to Ron's foul.

I put him in a similar category to JO. What he did was wrong, but out-of-character. I don't expect a repeat performance from either of them.

Am I forgetting something?

waterjater
12-23-2004, 01:30 PM
Able: I'm in 100% agreement with what you've stated today on the severity of the suspensions. There is no reason or logic to it whatsoever! That is what I continue to struggle with. Also, the hostile crowd and their over-reaction wasn't taken into consideration as mitigating factors.

At the end of the day, it feels like we all agree suspensions were warranted because it escalated into a nightmare situation for all involved. Ron had to get the most severe penalty because he did the IDIOT thing of going into the stands (on the road in a hostile environment). Jax deserved the 2nd most and on down the line. Ben Wallace's suspension was too light.

I also think most of us agree that the suspensions were too long and should be representative of the facts and prior penalties issued (was Maxwell's incident at home or on the road?). If all the precedents are within 10-20 games then thats where it should be for Artest plus a boost in penalty because of the end result (even though the fans escalated it further).

So give Ron 15 and 2x for Being David Stern or for the resulting brawl. (30 games)
Jax gets 2x Maxwell for going after two fans (20 games)
JO gets 10- Maxwell precedent...could be lower because said fan already on court and attacked two Pacers (Ron and AJ I think)
Ben Wallace- 5 games for the attack on Artest, Additional 2 games for failing to leave the court, plus 5 games for throwing **** and inciting the initial crowd reactions - total 10-12 games.

As we all know, we don't have much of a say in the Matter and Artest gave Stern a "WAY OUT" but being the scapegoat. Artest made Stern look like a hero which makes me sick to my stomach!!

My Opinion on the outcome. I'd love to see the Court side with the union and its players....Stern has too much power. But, I don't see it.

Court decides with Stern on jurisdiction, but Stern agrees after the fact with Kaplan on the merits of JO's past.

Water

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 01:44 PM
When Ben loses it he loses it, I have watched him go after refs many times verbally, but of course we don't care about that.

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 03:52 PM
I'd say there's a difference between "hotheadedness" and "anger management issues."

DisplacedKnick
12-23-2004, 04:05 PM
Does this make any sense. Why not judge Artest's actions. I would have more respect for Kaplan's decision if he just said, Artest was the first player to go into the stands and therefore he needs to be suspended for 73 games. Sorry for the rant, here it is


Well, in a lot of ways I agree with you but nothing in our legal system works that way.

Two drunk drivers get in accidents. In one the other driver walks away. In the other, the driver is killed. Are the punishments the same?

A couple of teenagers are screwing around and set fire to abandoned buildings. In one, the building just burns down. In the other, a homeless man is sleeping in it and dies.

Two people shoot someone. In the first case, the victim recovers. In the second, the victim dies. I could probably come up with a hundred examples like this.

The end result always affects the punishment.

able
12-23-2004, 04:09 PM
Well, in a lot of ways I agree with you but nothing in our legal system works that way.

Two drunk drivers get in accidents. In one the other driver walks away. In the other, the driver is killed. Are the punishments the same?

A couple of teenagers are screwing around and set fire to abandoned buildings. In one, the building just burns down. In the other, a homeless man is sleeping in it and dies.

Two people shoot someone. In the first case, the victim recovers. In the second, the victim dies. I could probably come up with a hundred examples like this.

The end result always affects the punishment.

Only if there is a proven relation between th outcome and the action, in this case the proof between the riot and Artest actions fails.

Hoop
12-23-2004, 06:21 PM
This was in the excerpts I posted above I commented on that also.

Quote:

Indeed the similarities end with the punch Vernon Maxwell threw.
Ron never punched anyone before two idiots came on the court and attacked him, this almost makes me want to shout, get your facts straight!
What he in concreto says here is that Since the Maxwell punchup did not end up in a brawl/riot there is no simularity, that statement in itself is nonsense, what the Maxwell case shows is that public reactions are different and that the mob in Auburn Hills reacted different then most other fans would have done. That however is not something that can be the foundation under a 730% increase in punishment's severity.
It also fails to mention at any moment that Ron never hit the spectator in the stands, not once, something that WOULD make the comparison between Maxwell and Artest fail.

and added reasoning above in this thread.That's the thing that will never make sense to me. Maxwell had a "History" of bad behavior before he punched the fan and only got 10 games. The guy don't even throw anything but words at Mad Max.

Ron's suspension does not compute anyway you look at it.:mad:

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 07:31 PM
From what I recall, the things the guy said about Maxwell's daughter were so offensive and repulsive that Maxwell 'received the benefit of the doubt' here. That is the primary reason I don't like to use that as a comparable situation.

Maxwell had a history of odd behavior. But I don't recall him as a habitual repeat offender of the league's on-court decorum standards. But I could be wrong here, Maxwell played on teams that I found un-interesting so I didn't watch him that closely...

able
12-24-2004, 06:59 AM
From the NY Times today, this makes very clear what I was saying earlier on about the reason for the TRO:

Judge Allows Pacer to Play on Saturday
By LIZ ROBBINS

Published: December 24, 2004



Duane Burleson/Associated Press

The Pacers' Jermaine O'Neal after the Nov. 19 brawl between the teams and fans. His 25-game suspension was cut to 15 games by an arbitrator.


A federal judge yesterday cleared Jermaine O'Neal to return from his suspension and play in the Indiana Pacers' game on Christmas in Indianapolis against the Detroit Pistons - and possibly for good.

As a stormy wind howled through an open window, Judge George B. Daniels of United States District Court in Manhattan granted the N.B.A. players' association's request for a temporary restraining order to halt the league's 25-game suspension of O'Neal for his role in the Nov. 19 brawl during a game against the Pistons at the Palace of Auburn Hills.

The decision temporarily upheld Wednesday's ruling by an arbitrator, Roger Kaplan, who reduced O'Neal's penalty by 10 games. A separate hearing before Judge Daniels on Dec. 30 will determine whether Kaplan had jurisdiction to rule on the case. If Judge Daniels finds Kaplan had no jurisdiction, O'Neal would serve the remaining 10 games.

After listening to testimony, Judge Daniels decided the players' union showed it had a likelihood of success that Kaplan had the jurisdiction to appeal Commissioner David Stern's suspension of O'Neal.

"It's the first good news we've had on our team," Pacers President Donnie Walsh said yesterday in a telephone interview. "Even if it's for two weeks, and I hope it will be more permanent than that. It's a great jolt at a time when we need it."

The N.B.A. had no choice to consent to Judge Daniels's ruling.

"While we disagree with the court's decision today and expect that ultimately Judge Daniels will find that the arbitrator had no authority in this matter, we will, of course, abide by the ruling of the court," Russ Granik, the N.B.A. deputy commissioner, said.

The Pacers (12-12) have lost 10 of their last 15 games. O'Neal averaged a team-high 22.6 points and 9.6 rebounds.

"We're not the same team without Jermaine as we are with Jermaine," Walsh said.

The union's outside counsel, Dewey Ballantine, convinced Judge Daniels that there would be "irreparable harm" sustained - like the Pacers' missing the playoffs or earning a lower seed - had O'Neal continued to sit out until the question of jurisdiction was decided.

The N.B.A. argued that O'Neal should sit out, and if a judge ruled in favor of him at a later date, he would be granted back pay. But Judge Daniels said money would not compensate for other intangibles of missing 10 games.

"That may have consequences for the player, the team, the player's future and the league's future," he said. "The balance of hardships tipped clearly in favor of the player."

In a statement made after visiting children in a hospital with teammates yesterday, O'Neal said: "I'm extremely happy. It's been a tough process. Now I can play the game I love so much. I'm ready, but I have to find a way to bottle up the energy and use it in a good way. I have to make sure we win games and when Stephen Jackson gets back, we can win a championship."

The players' union had contested the suspensions of O'Neal, Ron Artest (for the season), Jackson (30 games) and Anthony Johnson (5 games) in a hearing on Dec. 9, which the league did not attend because it protested the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear the case. Kaplan upheld the suspensions of Artest, Jackson and Johnson.

The collective bargaining agreement allows the commissioner sole authority to rule and hear appeals for "on-court" incidents. The union and Kaplan interpreted this to mean actions that occur only during the flow of the game.

The league, however, contends that the Pacers fought with fans - both in the stands and on the court - before the game was called by the officials, meaning it was part of the action.

The melee erupted moments after Pistons center Ben Wallace pushed Artest in response to what he considered an unnecessarily hard foul in the waning moments of a game that the Pacers had dominated. Artest jumped into the stands after a fan threw a drink on him.

Complicating the issue was the fact that O'Neal punched a fan on the court. He also shoved a security officer on the sideline.

But the union contended that both O'Neal incidents were part of the larger melee and subject to an appeal by an arbitrator.

"This merits further argument," Judge Daniels said.

The league's lawyers, led by Jeffrey Mishkin, a partner in Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, contended that if O'Neal were to return now, it could harm the image of the league because the arbitrator's ruling undermines Stern's authority.

"This affects the N.B.A. business in a huge way," Mishkin said. "We have to show we have our house in order."

Daniels disagreed.

"I do not feel in any way I have undermined the authority of the commissioner to discipline players for their conduct," he said.

Kessler said Daniels did not outright declare the union had won, but implied that "there is a pretty good chance of winning on the jurisdiction issue."

Only lawyers - no players - attended the hearing, which began at 10 a.m. and ended at 3:15 p.m.

O'Neal practiced with the Pacers yesterday morning and joined Artest and other Pacers in visiting children at three Indianapolis area hospitals.

"He hasn't played in a month, but he's practiced for the last two weeks," Walsh said. "Jermaine has kept his body in very good shape. I expect him to play pretty well."