PDA

View Full Version : Bird calls NBA suspensions 'excessive'



Hicks
12-23-2004, 10:59 PM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/12/23/sports1935EST0464.DTL

Bird calls NBA suspensions 'excessive'

By JON KRAWCZYNSKI
AP Sports Writer

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Indiana Pacers president Larry Bird was shocked by the suspensions commissioner David Stern handed out to his three best players, but also accepted blame for their role in the brawl with Detroit fans.

With the dust finally starting to settle on one of the worst cases of player-fan violence in U.S. sports history, Bird and Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh on Thursday evening reflected on a tumultuous 37 days since several Pacers players fought with Detroit Pistons fans on Nov. 19.

Two days after the melee, Stern suspended Ron Artest for the remainder of the season (73 games), Stephen Jackson for 30 games, Jermaine O'Neal for 25 and Anthony Johnson for five.

Walsh said that while sitting in his office on Nov. 21, he expected "big games. I think I would've said 30 or 40 (for Artest) and then 10 or 15 (for Jackson and O'Neal)."

"There was a rumor going around that it was 30-20-20 or 30-20-15, and I said, 'Wow man, he's really hitting these guys hard,'" Bird said. "That's excessive. But this? This is off the charts. This is a shocker.

"We all thought they were so excessive, but especially Ronnie's," Bird said. "We're talking about 70 games."

Arbitrator Roger Kaplan reduced O'Neal's suspension by 10 games, allowing him to play on Saturday in the rematch at home with the Pistons. The punishments for Artest and Jackson remained the same.

A federal judge upheld Kaplan's ruling on Thursday, and the NBA will have to wait until next Thursday to argue its case again.


"The team has spent the last month just basically trying to fight through an extremely difficult time," Walsh said. "Not just going out and playing games, being short-handed, but all this stuff flying around their head."

While Bird and Walsh both said they thought Stern's punishment was excessive, they didn't shy away from the players' culpability.

"Don't go in there. You don't do that. You do not go in the stands, for anything," Bird said. "Nobody ever sat us down (as players) and told us that, but we knew."

Artest bolted to the stands to chase down a fan who he thought hit him in the face with a plastic cup. Jackson followed him in, swinging wildly at fans who were assaulting Artest.

"We entered this not trying to throw blame on a lot of people, because we were wrong," Walsh said. "What we're trying to say is, we were wrong and we understand you had to act, but there were mitigating circumstances that could have mitigated the punishment you gave them."

It left Bird to think about what might have been.

"Had Ben (Wallace) and Ron squared off at center court and fought for whatever they fought for, 10 seconds, 15 seconds and both got suspended, it would have been the best thing that ever happened to this league," he said. "Nobody would have liked it, but they probably would have got five, 10 games maybe and then you move on."

Instead, the Pacers have stumbled to a 5-10 record without their top three scorers and enter Saturday's game against the Pistons at 12-12.

"You can't blame Stern for that, we got to blame ourselves somewhat," Bird said. "Guys did what they did."

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 11:12 PM
That last line is perfect, and why I get tired of the popular notion around here to "blame Stern".

Before you blame Stern for decimating the Pacers, make sure you attach sufficient blame to Ron, SJax & Co.

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 11:14 PM
Good to hear from Bird, he has been very quiet

skyfire
12-23-2004, 11:20 PM
That last line is perfect, and why I get tired of the popular notion around here to "blame Stern".

Before you blame Stern for decimating the Pacers, make sure you attach sufficient blame to Ron, SJax & Co.

You cant blame Stern for suspending our players. You can blame him for making the suspensions excessively long.

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 11:22 PM
Yeah, but even according to the arbitrator, only JO's punishment was excessively long. So you can only accuse Stern of excessive punishment for JO's ten extra games.

Unclebuck
12-23-2004, 11:30 PM
Yeah, but even according to the arbitrator, only JO's punishment was excessively long. So you can only accuse Stern of excessive punishment for JO's ten extra games.



So we have to agree with the arbitrator also ?.

PacerMan
12-23-2004, 11:40 PM
You cant blame Stern for suspending our players. You can blame him for making the suspensions excessively long.

Excessively long in what regard? All I see mentioned is comparison to other fighting incidents. That is irrelevant. What is at stake here is nothing less than the league's image. If an NBA arena becomes a place to be a afraid to go to, this league is dead.
This is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY..

ChicagoJ
12-23-2004, 11:46 PM
So we have to agree with the arbitrator also ?.
You wanted an independent/ third party who allegedly was sympathetic to the union.

The NBA/ Stern didn't even bother to show up and testify, and in spite of all that, Kaplan still felt the punishments, with one exception, were appropriate.

So let me ask you, or anyone else: what will it take to convince you that the punishments were not excessive? Or will anything?

skyfire
12-23-2004, 11:52 PM
I dont think you should ever suspend a player for a full/rest of a season. Teams play seasons, players play games. If Stern wanted to make a massively excessive suspension then make it 100 games (regular season and playoffs inlcusive till its done), 72 games which just happens to be the rest of the season just wracks of penalizing the team, not the player.

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:01 AM
I don't have any problem the the idea that if a player commits a major "crime" against his league that he's told to "go away and come back next season, if you're ready to grow up and accept your role as a representative of the league."

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 12:04 AM
Jay, I was objecting to your statement, and I'll quote you, "So you can only accuse Stern of excessive punishment for JO's ten extra games."

So you are saying that my opinion that Ron's suspension was excessive is invalid because of what the arbitrator ruled. I believe the arbitrator is wrong.


Jay you also ask, what will it take to convice some of you that the suspensions were not excessive. The answer is nothing. I have seen the tape 100's of times, I know what went on and I believe the suspensions were way too long. I am making my own mind up. If Ron comes out tomorrow and says the suspensions were just, I would disagree with him too.

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:05 AM
Tina and I were just discussing...

What if the league had shown up and testified...

Does Kaplan think that even longer punishments - I'm mostly talking about SJax but also perhaps Ron - could've been appropriate?

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 12:06 AM
Tina and I were just discussing...

What if the league had shown up and testified...

Does Kaplan think that even longer punishments - I'm mostly talking about SJax but also perhaps Ron - could've been appropriate?



Perhaps, I don't have any idea. But don't tell me I have to agree with the arbitrator

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:14 AM
Jay, I was objecting to your statement, and I'll quote you, "So you can only accuse Stern of excessive punishment for JO's ten extra games."

So you are saying that my opinion that Ron's suspension was excessive is invalid because of what the arbitrator ruled. I believe the arbitrator is wrong.


Jay you also ask, what will it take to convice some of you that the suspensions were not excessive. The answer is nothing. I have seen the tape 100's of times, I know what went on and I believe the suspensions were way too long. I am making my own mind up. If Ron comes out tomorrow and says the suspensions were just, I would disagree with him too.No, that's a fine opinion, you're entitled to make your own conclusions and disagree with the arbitrator. I'm not trying to be an @$$ here but many were just assuming that the arbitrator would automatically conclude Ron's punishment was excessive and he didn't. So this isn't about "Stern hates the Pacers" as so many on here have concluded. Maybe, just maybe, the punishment fits the crime.

waterjater
12-24-2004, 12:15 AM
Glad to finally hear from Bird!! His description of how things should've been handled is probably the best I've heard yet.

It is also a shame that he's right about Ron taking on Ben rather than backing down. This would've been better. But this isn't what the players are taught. They are taught to back down and not respond! The refs should've ejected Ben immediately and get the final 49 seconds over with quickly. THE NBA and its' related parties (refs and security) failed their OWN LEAGUE and were directly a party to this incident. Once they (THE NBA) failed, our Players also failed to keep themselves on the Damn court and as Donnie and Bird said we THEN had to be held accountable. BUT THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON FOR THE SEVERITY!! NONE!! IMHO!!

Water

Anthem
12-24-2004, 12:17 AM
So let me ask you, or anyone else: what will it take to convince you that the punishments were not excessive? Or will anything?

Go ahead and agree with Stern.... I'll agree with Larry Bird.

The punishments were excessive.

Kstat
12-24-2004, 12:18 AM
BUT THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON FOR THE SEVERITY!! NONE!! IMHO!!

Water

apparently, the players union's hand-picked arbitrator disagrees.....

maybe if you keep going to arbitrator after arbitrator, after 6 or 7 you might find one that agrees with Ron.......

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 12:20 AM
No, that's a fine opinion, you're entitled to make your own conclusions and disagree with the arbitrator. I'm not trying to be an @$$ here but many were just assuming that the arbitrator would automatically conclude Ron's punishment was excessive and he didn't. So this isn't about "Stern hates the Pacers" as so many on here have concluded. Maybe, just maybe, the punishment fits the crime.



I don't believe I have ever posted that Stern hates the Pacers, or is biased against the Pacers. If I did maybe it was in a fit of anger, ah wait, let's say frustration,

I honestly don't believe Stern hates the Pacers, or is biased against the Pacers or hates or is biased against small market teams.

I just believe with all my mind, heart and soul that his rulings in this case were excessive. He made a wrong decision.

Is there any inconsistancies in my comments

Anthem
12-24-2004, 12:20 AM
This is exactly where I was at, by the way.


Walsh said that while sitting in his office on Nov. 21, he expected "big games. I think I would've said 30 or 40 (for Artest) and then 10 or 15 (for Jackson and O'Neal)."

"There was a rumor going around that it was 30-20-20 or 30-20-15, and I said, 'Wow man, he's really hitting these guys hard,'" Bird said. "That's excessive. But this? This is off the charts. This is a shocker.

"We all thought they were so excessive, but especially Ronnie's," Bird said. "We're talking about 70 games."

You've already admitted, Jay, that the punishment was less to fit the crime and more to make a statement to the fans / (non-Pacer) players. Leave it at that, man.

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:20 AM
Go ahead and agree with Stern.... I'll agree with Larry Bird.

The punishments were excessive.
Again, I'm not trying to be an @$$ but I agree with Kaplan.

Kstat
12-24-2004, 12:22 AM
Again, I'm not trying to be an @$$ but I agree with Kaplan.

and ahonestly, when you've taken your case to an ARBITRATOR, who has NO STAKE WHATSOEVER in this, and HE agrees with the other party, WHO DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO SHOW UP, I think you've lost the right to complain, anyway.

They willingly put their fate in this guy's hands, so they have zero right to complain about the ruling.

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:25 AM
I don't believe I have ever posted that Stern hates the Pacers, or is biased against the Pacers. If I did maybe it was in a fit of anger, ah wait, let's say frustration,

I honestly don't believe Stern hates the Pacers, or is biased against the Pacers or hates or is biased against small market teams.

I just believe with all my mind, heart and soul that his rulings in this case were excessive. He made a wrong decision.

Is there any inconsistancies in my comments
You're right, you haven't been making the anti-Stern statements. I don't have any problem with your logic. I've follow the same steps and reach a different conclusion.

I was basically talking to you and all the anti-Stern folks in one post, and I didn't separate those comments very well. Sorry if it seems like I'm accusing you of just blindly firing off the "Stern is out to screw us" comments.

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 12:26 AM
Let me say this I think 70 games is a huge number of games. As I sit here and think of terrible things a player could ever possibly do I cannot come up with anything that would warrant a 70 game suspension.

I suppose in this context. I would have suspended Ron for 41 games and ordered him into some anger management counseling. And if he ever went into the stands again, I would suspend him for 82 games, and if he did it a third time then I would ban him for life.

If on Saturday Sheed comes into the stands and did exactly what Artest did, I still would not believe a 70 game suspension is warranted.

Deadshot
12-24-2004, 12:29 AM
Great post UB. I especially agree with your last sentence; and we both know that a Pacers fan won't go as far to provoke a player like that.

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:31 AM
Let me say this... I voted for 41 games on that poll a week or two. That sounded like the right number to me.

But 41 games would've been very close, if not beyond, the trading deadline.

Hypothetically, let's say any team, it could be GSW and Sprewell, facing a major suspension decides that a particular player is never going to suit up for thier franchise ever again. Requiring a re-instatement after the trading deadline passes is potentially an even worse punishment on a team, because it eliminates thier opportunity to move a guy if they so choose.

So IMO, anything beyond the day the trading deadline expires and "rest of the season" are equal.

Anthem
12-24-2004, 12:31 AM
Sheed stalked a ref to the parking lot and got, what, 7 games?

I maintain that if it hand't been on TV it would have been different.

ReGgieMiLLeR31
12-24-2004, 12:33 AM
Jay,

I think your view is so biased against Ron Artest...you will agree with anything that keeps Ron Artest from playing. We have to look at mitigating factors and precedent, and these suspensions only hurt this organization. I must question your loyalty as a Pacer fan for behaving like this.

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:34 AM
Sheed stalked a ref to the parking lot and got, what, 7 games?

I maintain that if it hand't been on TV it would have been different.
You could be right, but the flip side is that it *did* happen during a national tv game. You can play what-if and say that, in other circumstances, it might have been a lesser punishment. But by saying that, don't you also have to say that, since it was on national tv, that harsher than normal punishments are justified?

Anthem
12-24-2004, 12:36 AM
Wow. I strongly disagree with that. There's a big difference between 41 games and 70 games.

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 12:36 AM
Sheed stalked a ref to the parking lot and got, what, 7 games?

I maintain that if it hand't been on TV it would have been different.


Did Sheed threaten to kill the ref, oh wait I think that was Spree.

Was I in favor of the suspension that Spree got. That was a little different matter. If any player threatens to kill his coach while physically assaulting the coach like Spree did, then I think the team should suspend the player for a year wthout pay, and the league should back up the team.

But I believe what Spree did was worse, but it was not on TV.

Anthem
12-24-2004, 12:38 AM
But by saying that, don't you also have to say that, since it was on national tv, that harsher than normal punishments are justified?

Justified is the wrong word... whether the game was on TV was beyond Ron's control.

If you said "necessary from a PR perspective," then I'd be more inclined to agree. But not "justified."

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:39 AM
Did Sheed threaten to kill the ref, oh wait I think that was Spree.

Was I in favor of the suspension that Spree got. That was a little different matter. If any player threatens to kill his coach while physically assaulting the coach like Spree did, then I think the team should suspend the player for a year wthout pay, and the league should back up the team.

But I believe what Spree did was worse, but it was not on TV.
The irony there was that GSW gave Spree a 10-game suspension, and then the league stepped in and said it wasn't severe enough. :rolleyes: I've always thought that decision was 100% wrong.

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 12:40 AM
The irony there was that GSW gave Spree a 10-game suspension, and then the league stepped in and said it wasn't severe enough. :rolleyes: I've always thought that decision was 100% wrong.


The team's decision or the leagues decision ?

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:41 AM
Justified is the wrong word... whether the game was on TV was beyond Ron's control.

If you said "necessary from a PR perspective," then I'd be more inclined to agree. But not "justified."

Solely because you're an editor and I write financial reports for a living...

If "Necessary from a PR perspective" doesn't "justify" the punishments, what must be done to justify the punishments?

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:43 AM
The team's decision or the leagues decision ?
Sorry... wasn't clear... this didn't take place in a league-sanctioned game, it was a private matter. The league had no business stepping in. Perhaps the Warrior's punishment was too light, but that's thier perogative, too (and perhaps they initially thought PJ was somewhat to blame, as well.)

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 12:43 AM
I've enjoyed discussing this topic with you fine folks, but I am signing off to go watch Shaq and Ostertag beat on each other and then I am going to sleep

Anthem
12-24-2004, 12:45 AM
I've always thought that decision was 100% wrong.

You're right, that is ironic.

Wait... I don't think I meant it how you meant it. :devil:

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 12:46 AM
Yeah, I'm just going to bed.

If I'm not back online for a while, Merry Christmas to you guys....

For unto us, a Savior was born.

Going to my first Christmas Eve service in Willow's new auditorium tomorrow night. Tina went earlier this week and said it was awesome.

Anthem
12-24-2004, 12:58 AM
Yeah, the new auditorium is wild. I didn't think I'd like it, but I really did. It's very nice. The new atrium is REALLY nice.

Anyway, what I was trying to say is that making punishment decisions based on the audience may make sense from a PR perspective, but that doesn't mean it's fair to Ron. And I think that's the big disconnect here. You're saying "Stern had to make a statement to everybody that wasn't the Pacers" and a lot of people are saying "but it wasn't fair to Ron."

It's not fair to Ron. But those are the breaks... as Bird said, he put himself in this position. From here on, I'll live with it.

Have a good Christmas, man.

PaceBalls
12-24-2004, 01:21 AM
Bottom line is this, the Pacers had a team that was too good for their own market. The oppurtunity arose and the NBA acted in its own best interests by leveling the playing field.

Now the Pacers are a damn good team minus a MVP/DPOY.

You know it, I know it, Stern knows it.

Reggie4Three
12-24-2004, 01:35 AM
What we need is more Pistons fans telling us how fair the suspensions were. I think that would convince me . . .

Kstat
12-24-2004, 01:40 AM
apparently, the arbitrator hates the pacers too.....

Reggie4Three
12-24-2004, 01:51 AM
You've got me convinced.

Kstat
12-24-2004, 01:53 AM
You've got me convinced.

I wouldn't pretend to convince anyone, least of all someone who can't be reasoned with.

Reggie4Three
12-24-2004, 01:56 AM
I wouldn't pretend to convince anyone, least of all someone who can't be reasoned with.

Good. It would take someone with an ounce of objectivity to attempt to reason with me.

waterjater
12-24-2004, 02:54 AM
Kstat: It is my opinion that there is no rational way to justify the season long suspension regardless of what Stern or Kaplan say. This is MY OPINION. And like I said, I agree with Bird and Walsh's view that they are excessive penalities and I disagree with Stern and Kaplan. I do believe Artest deserved a long suspension because his actions were a major factor in the ugliness that occurred....just not the rest of the season.

MY opinion is also that B. Wallace got away with "murder". His suspension was absurdly short!! He didn't even acknowledge he did anything wrong! I bet and hope he feels horrible about his brother being banned from the palace.

Stern used Artest as a scapegoat to cover up all the mis-steps by the NBA and its related parties. The refs failed to call a flagrant on B. Wallace with 1 min 40 secs to go. Then they failed to eject B. Wallace immediately after he attacked Artest without reason! Then they milled around and talked while the situation escalated with Ben throwing **** at his fellow NBA players. The NBA's security should've moved in immediately behind the scorers table to protect the fans and the players, but failed to do so. Stern used Artest to cover his leagues own failures.

Water

Hoop
12-24-2004, 04:26 AM
apparently, the arbitrator hates the pacers too.....
Troll

able
12-24-2004, 05:15 AM
Ok let me get this straight, from motivated discussion we now sink to shoutology.

Kstat; If all you can contribute is "he said so, so it is true" then I consider that cheap-shots and ask you kindly that if Stern tells you to hang yourself and Kaplan says the request is reasonable, would you do it?

Jay, Several open options have been presented to you for motivated answers, yet you to fail to do that, the fact that Kaplan agrees with Stern means nothing, I have motivated the objections to (public part till now) ruling Kaplan gave here:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=119629&postcount=192

And have yet to hear from anyone in a likewise motivated and supported manner how Kaplan can be right.

I gave more then sufficient "comparable" cases (players into the stands) here:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=119821&postcount=22

Both on a challenge from you, yet after that you are silent, despite the overwhelming evidence I bring forward.

Now the last post above was even "enforced" by Larry Bird today in the Star:


Bird emphasized that players should never go into the stands in response to fan behavior. He recalled Kevin McHale and Cedric Maxwell going after hecklers in separate incidents when he played with them in Boston.

"When they came back (to the floor) we were going, 'What are you thinking? We're trying to win a championship here and you're up there fighting some old man,' " Bird said.

Bird said his teammates weren't suspended.

This was said in an article where Bird says the suspensions were excessive.

Now Kstat's "behaviour" and "opinion" is understandable, since he is a Piston fan, which obviously shows "clouded vision" to begin with, but yours?

I put it to you that your view of the matter is clouded as well, and specifically by your hatred of Ron Artest.

If the same thing happened to Tinsley or JO your opinin would be considerably differing from your current one.

I can understand that feeling, but at least do admit to the fact that your judgement in this case might not be so spot on as you would like us to believe and as you are in other cases.

of course you can prove me wrong by coming with a fully motivated and supported answer in favour of your support of the suspension length.

JO_pace
12-24-2004, 06:50 AM
i just feel that a season long suspension is enough, provided that artest can be back for the playoffs...~

sixthman
12-24-2004, 09:40 AM
Forget about Artest being back for the playoffs. Ain't happening.

sixthman
12-24-2004, 09:44 AM
By the way, this quote came from an associated press article on the arbitrator's original ruling. Think he really made this goofy statement?

"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," Kaplan wrote.

pacerbob
12-24-2004, 11:15 AM
The season long suspension would only be justified if the fan(s) had not started the physical assault on the players and players went into stands due to verbal abuse. Less severe precedents of this occurring have been established.

I still wondering why Detroit ownership has not been penalized for the lack of security.

ChicagoJ
12-24-2004, 11:47 AM
As a purist who hates it when any single player does something that embarasses basketball, I've generally been supportive of Stern when he's had to hand down a stiff punishment.

I view this incident as especially embarassing to basketball. You know what, I think its absolutely terrible that basketball is now being compared to European football and American baseball. They were considered the bottom of the barrel, and now basketball has jumped into that gutter as well.

I don't like to see guys on my team be suspended, but I am also bitter that they couldn't control themselves, maintain thier compsoure, that they stooped the level of those knuckleheads... Have some class, guys. We won that game, fair and square. Just point to the scoreboard and walk away.

So I just can't blame Stern and/ or Kaplan for taking a hard stance, even if its considered 'excessive' from a historical perspective (because I believe this event was substantially different - this is when 'we' became one of 'them' and I don't have a problem with Stern picking a punishment that ensures the NBA never becomes one of 'them' again.)

As we watched it unfold, I truly expected both Ron and SJax to be given season-long suspensions - even considering the provocation. I really expected Stern would lay a heavy fine against the Pistons - that's the thing that Stern did (did not do) that upset me.

So I think that's the difference - I'm upset Stern let the Pistons organization off 'easy' because I think thier punishment should be as severe as ours. Instead, many of the rest of you want Stern to lower our punishments because of his leniency with the Pistons' organization.

Anthem
12-24-2004, 11:50 AM
You know what? I could go with that. If the Pistons had been slapped nearly as hard as the Pacers (shoot, if they had recieved even a slap on the hand), I'd feel differently. This feels like the Pacers have been singled out.

Unclebuck
12-24-2004, 11:55 AM
Jay, I agree with you, and when people criticize the NBA I don't like it one bit, because I love the NBA, but I guess my love of the pacers overshadows my love for the NBA.

pacerbob, yes, thank you. If Artest was not provoked like he was, if he would have gone into the stands due to verbal assault only, then I would be more willing to agree with the punishment he got, but then again Maxwell did just that and he got 10 games, so if a riot had broken out would Maxwell had gotten a whole season. Following that logic then Ben Wallace wshould have gotten a lot more because he started the chain reaction

Anthem
12-24-2004, 11:58 AM
It's not like Ron hasn't been hit with stuff before. I remember two games of a Western road trip after the Miami incident where he got his with quarters and whatnot.

Reggie4Three
12-24-2004, 02:21 PM
I don't think anyone objects to the suspensions, only the length of each is debatable. I don't think Stern hates the Pacers, but I think he's been unfair in handing out the punishment. The suspensions, along with a lack of any substantial punishment for the Piston organization, places the blame almost entirely on the Pacers. Anyone with an objective bone in their body realizes there is plenty of blame to go around.

able
12-24-2004, 10:52 PM
Ok let me get this straight, from motivated discussion we now sink to shoutology.

Jay, Several open options have been presented to you for motivated answers, yet you to fail to do that, the fact that Kaplan agrees with Stern means nothing, I have motivated the objections to (public part till now) ruling Kaplan gave here:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=119629&postcount=192

And have yet to hear from anyone in a likewise motivated and supported manner how Kaplan can be right.

I put it to you that your view of the matter is clouded as well, and specifically by your hatred of Ron Artest.

If the same thing happened to Tinsley or JO your opinion would be considerably differing from your current one.

I can understand that feeling, but at least do admit to the fact that your judgement in this case might not be so spot on as you would like us to believe and as you are in other cases.

of course you can prove me wrong by coming with a fully motivated and supported answer in favour of your support of the suspension length.



<time ticker> ........ </timeticker>

Hicks
12-25-2004, 12:03 AM
Jay implied he may not be around much until the 3rd, but I'm positive he'll respond if you remind him after that. :)