Comment: You're wrong

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: If someone was stupid enough (see in situ)

You're wrong

Sterling's "contract" is the same "contract" under which all NBA owners operate, and there's absolutely *no* specificity in it regarding grounds for owners voting another to a forced sale, or even for the Commissioner to impose a suspension/fine.

It's as vague as "in the best interests of the NBA", or "conduct detrimental", or some such. They can deem ANYTHING in that category if they wish. It's all about PR, and whims.

My comment about Barkley was simply to point out that Barkley (a nightly FACE of the NBA) has said/done much more offensive things than what Sterling "did". The outrage is therefore ridiculous and hypocritical.

And if the NBA "members" thought nose-picking, or wearing white after Labor Day, or ANYTHING was an act that they thought was "detrimental" to their brand, they'd absolutely be free to force the sale of the culprit.

And they'd be just as shortsighted, cowardly and *intolerant* to do so.