Doc Rivers will quit Clippers if Sterling remains the owner

[Winsome Gerbil]

Signs with a racist owner. Complains when racist owner is still owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I doubt Doc knew anything about his checkered past.

Yes, because he only played for him back in the 80s, and we internet trolls knew all the dirt, but Doc, his agent, and the huge group of NBA aquaintances around him did not? That doesn't seem very likely.

[blizzard]

Laker vultures are circling.

[BKing10]

He'll stay. But when they don't win this year he will definitely still use it as an excuse

[Don Ford]

When Doc signed with the Clippers he knew perfectly well that Sterling was a flaming racist..He choose to ignore it all...(including The poor black tenants being thrown out on the streets by Sterling and the Elgin Baylor lawsuit)..When Sterling's racist views went national, Doc all of sudden became outraged.

Exactly, Doc knew full well that Sterling was a racist when he agreed to take his money.

So? There's a difference in doing so now. Making a ineffective protest in the past would not help anyone or have an effect on Sterling at all.

If he continues to be coach on a team owned by an exposed racist he is sending a message that this is OK. That is doing worse than simply turning a blind eye.

And unlike in the past, he is in a position to take a meaningful stand. If he did so earlier, nothing changes in the Clippers. Doing so now pushes the momentum for making it untenable for Sterling to remain involved with the NBA, either through forced sale or by the Clippers becoming a unmarketable team which may not be able to fill necessary staff to field a team.

Affiliating with the Clippers may have been a moral issue with many people, depending on your view. But even if we accept that it was wrong for Doc to sign with LAC, it does not exclude one from standing up now. It isn't being hypocritical per se, it is a more normal form of morality where one only takes a stand against injustices at appropriate times.

Completely disagree. So if you go to work for somebody that you know is a member of the KKK and then when that person is publically exposed as a KKK mmber you act outraged and threaten to quit that wouldn't make you a hypocrite?

If you enter into a relationship, business or personal, with somebody that has a well documented history of racism, or any other kind of immoral acts, and then want to act outraged that they are the kind of person you fully knew they were when they are publically exposed you have absolutely no moral highground to stand on.

[HotRocks34]

Does Donald Sterling not understand or care that if he remains the owner his team will basically be non-existant?

I'm not sure that he cares:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne/status/491802953909800961[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ramonashelburne/status/491814610056806400[/tweet]

[QRich3]

So, this got to page 4 and no one mentioned that this is an obvious ploy to pressure the court on the decision they have to take next week? They're about to decide if Shelly's sale of the team to Ballmer was legal, and the credibility of players and sponsors boycott of Sterling is gonna play a part on it. Doc's just reminding them that the boycott is real (even if it's probably not).

Sterling is gone, it's only a matter of when it's gonna be official, it might be next week, or it might be in September if the NBA has to resume the forced sale they put on hold last June. Then DTS will keep fighting on the courts for years, yeah, but he's gone from the NBA regardless.

And lol at RealGM trying to feel righteous by questioning Doc's morality. Half of you work for corporations directed by men way more ruthless and unscrupulous than Sterling, the other half consume their products daily.

[Optimus_Steel]

Doc knew what he was getting into. He played for the Clips, he has been around for a long time so I am sure he has heard or things that have happend. I think i read somewhere that his uncle also worked for the Clips and got screwed by Sterling. So he knew what the situation was.

[kwb]

Good call Doc. If anything, you should have boycotted the playoffs. That would have cost Sterling money. Find your balls or get out. Him being a racist wasn't a problem when he handed you a check.

[Slava]

Lakers need a coach so I think Rivers would be a good candidate

I'd rather Jim Buss coach the team.

[Slava]

Anyways Doc Rivers is not walking away after weaseling his way out of his Boston contract and getting Sterling to pay him $7 mil/yr using Chris Paul as leverage and promoting himself to president of basketball ops. He is the ultimate glory hunter who will abandon a sinking ship but the Clippers' ship hasn't sunk yet.

[Slava]

So, this got to page 4 and no one mentioned that this is an obvious ploy to pressure the court on the decision they have to take next week? They're about to decide if Shelly's sale of the team to Ballmer was legal, and the credibility of players and sponsors boycott of Sterling is gonna play a part on it. Doc's just reminding them that the boycott is real (even if it's probably not).

Sterling is gone, it's only a matter of when it's gonna be official, it might be next week, or it might be in September if the NBA has to resume the forced sale they put on hold last June. Then DTS will keep fighting on the courts for years, yeah, but he's gone from the NBA regardless.

And lol at RealGM trying to feel righteous by questioning Doc's morality. Half of you work for corporations directed by men way more ruthless and unscrupulous than Sterling, the other half consume their products daily.

Why does the court care what happens to the Clippers? Their job is to ensure that someone's property cannot just be taken away and sold in this country for being a racist bigot. Clippers are Sterling's property and if he wants to damage it, he has the right to do it.

[Kings2013]

He already knows Sterling will not remain there

[QRich3]

So, this got to page 4 and no one mentioned that this is an obvious ploy to pressure the court on the decision they have to take next week? They're about to decide if Shelly's sale of the team to Ballmer was legal, and the credibility of players and sponsors boycott of Sterling is gonna play a part on it. Doc's just reminding them that the boycott is real (even if it's probably not).

Sterling is gone, it's only a matter of when it's gonna be official, it might be next week, or it might be in September if the NBA has to resume the forced sale they put on hold last June. Then DTS will keep fighting on the courts for years, yeah, but he's gone from the NBA regardless.

And lol at RealGM trying to feel righteous by questioning Doc's morality. Half of you work for corporations directed by men way more ruthless and unscrupulous than Sterling, the other half consume their products daily.

Why does the court care what happens to the Clippers? Their job is to ensure that someone's property cannot just be taken away and sold in this country for being a racist bigot. Clippers are Sterling's property and if he wants to damage it, he has the right to do it.

Ask the lawyers who keep bringin it up in court when questioning Shelly, not me

I'm guessing they want to know every detail of the situation, not just is he/ is he not demented.

[madmaxmedia]

Completely disagree. So if you go to work for somebody that you know is a member of the KKK and then when that person is publically exposed as a KKK mmber you act outraged and threaten to quit that wouldn't make you a hypocrite?

If you enter into a relationship, business or personal, with somebody that has a well documented history of racism, or any other kind of immoral acts, and then want to act outraged that they are the kind of person you fully knew they were when they are publically exposed you have absolutely no moral highground to stand on.

I agree there's personal responsibility involved, back when he or any other player joined the team, as well as the present day. But just because he joined the team previously, doesn't make it hypocritical to change your position now.

It's not about moral high ground, he just isn't willing to work for Sterling any longer.

I do think making that statement now is a bit misguided, in that the NBA and just about everyone in the Clipper organization is trying to move towards new ownership, and one senile lunatic is sticking his head in the sand and refusing to go along with what is obviously the best for everyone involved (including himself, really.)

It's not going to influence the legal system, their concern is not whether the team should or should not be sold, but whether the means in which it is being sold is legal.

[Slava]

So, this got to page 4 and no one mentioned that this is an obvious ploy to pressure the court on the decision they have to take next week? They're about to decide if Shelly's sale of the team to Ballmer was legal, and the credibility of players and sponsors boycott of Sterling is gonna play a part on it. Doc's just reminding them that the boycott is real (even if it's probably not).

Sterling is gone, it's only a matter of when it's gonna be official, it might be next week, or it might be in September if the NBA has to resume the forced sale they put on hold last June. Then DTS will keep fighting on the courts for years, yeah, but he's gone from the NBA regardless.

And lol at RealGM trying to feel righteous by questioning Doc's morality. Half of you work for corporations directed by men way more ruthless and unscrupulous than Sterling, the other half consume their products daily.

Why does the court care what happens to the Clippers? Their job is to ensure that someone's property cannot just be taken away and sold in this country for being a racist bigot. Clippers are Sterling's property and if he wants to damage it, he has the right to do it.

Ask the lawyers who keep bringin it up in court when questioning Shelly, not me

I'm guessing they want to know every detail of the situation, not just is he/ is he not demented.

The lawyers can say a lot of things but the court in general would look to rule if Sterling has the mental capability to run the team and if he's been making most of the majority decisions when it comes to running the Clippers which he seemed to be doing or if the Sterling family trust can overrule him on any sale based on him being mentally incapable.

[madmaxmedia]

So, this got to page 4 and no one mentioned that this is an obvious ploy to pressure the court on the decision they have to take next week? They're about to decide if Shelly's sale of the team to Ballmer was legal, and the credibility of players and sponsors boycott of Sterling is gonna play a part on it. Doc's just reminding them that the boycott is real (even if it's probably not).

Sterling is gone, it's only a matter of when it's gonna be official, it might be next week, or it might be in September if the NBA has to resume the forced sale they put on hold last June. Then DTS will keep fighting on the courts for years, yeah, but he's gone from the NBA regardless.

And lol at RealGM trying to feel righteous by questioning Doc's morality. Half of you work for corporations directed by men way more ruthless and unscrupulous than Sterling, the other half consume their products daily.

Why does the court care what happens to the Clippers? Their job is to ensure that someone's property cannot just be taken away and sold in this country for being a racist bigot. Clippers are Sterling's property and if he wants to damage it, he has the right to do it.

Ask the lawyers who keep bringin it up in court when questioning Shelly, not me

I'm guessing they want to know every detail of the situation, not just is he/ is he not demented.

I guess we'll see...

[NBAfan3024]

Still time to get rid hopefully

[diablerouge]

So, this got to page 4 and no one mentioned that this is an obvious ploy to pressure the court on the decision they have to take next week? They're about to decide if Shelly's sale of the team to Ballmer was legal, and the credibility of players and sponsors boycott of Sterling is gonna play a part on it. Doc's just reminding them that the boycott is real (even if it's probably not).

Sterling is gone, it's only a matter of when it's gonna be official, it might be next week, or it might be in September if the NBA has to resume the forced sale they put on hold last June. Then DTS will keep fighting on the courts for years, yeah, but he's gone from the NBA regardless.

And lol at RealGM trying to feel righteous by questioning Doc's morality. Half of you work for corporations directed by men way more ruthless and unscrupulous than Sterling, the other half consume their products daily.

Why does the court care what happens to the Clippers? Their job is to ensure that someone's property cannot just be taken away and sold in this country for being a racist bigot. Clippers are Sterling's property and if he wants to damage it, he has the right to do it.

the clippers are not his property. he owns 1/30th of the nba and has been allocated the clippers franchise. the owners can vote to kick out anyone who violates the nba code of conduct or is bad for business. it's a private club.

[QRich3]

Ask the lawyers who keep bringin it up in court when questioning Shelly, not me

I'm guessing they want to know every detail of the situation, not just is he/ is he not demented.

The lawyers can say a lot of things but the court in general would look to rule if Sterling has the mental capability to run the team and if he's been making most of the majority decisions when it comes to running the Clippers which he seemed to be doing or if the Sterling family trust can overrule him on any sale based on him being mentally incapable.

Well if they do it they must be thinking it has a chance to influence the decision, and they're really good paid guys who know how this court stuff works. Otherwise the lawsuit would be over with a couple of doctors testimonies. It'll also probably set the framework for a future antitrust lawsuit that's inevitable to come if they rule the team was sold illegally. That's why Doc and Lebron and other guys keep making a point in public of the boycott.

[theforumblue]

rivers is taking this stance because he knows he'll come off looking good. he really has nothing to lose. that's not taking a stance. if you don't take a stance even when no one but you will know why, then you aren't really taking a stance at all.