Page 17 of 31
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 12:11 pm
by Frank Lee
Pantsing is a pretty sophomoric prank that’s straight out of 1950’s60s70s mentality. The same era was ripe for misogyny, bragging about BJs and boobed up women, and racially insensitive or ignorant comments. Easy to slip into that mindset for some, especially those who once saw all of that accepted in society, or at least tolerated.
The dude is just a colossal arrogant richprick dork who has been able to sidestep behavioral accountability
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:21 pm
by Slim Charless
bwgood77 wrote:Barkley6 wrote:bwgood77 wrote:
If pantsing ever goes to court it is usually charged as a sexual harrassment charge...not assault.
But if you are saying his underpants were removed as well and he was completely exposed and touched, then yes, there coudld be more. I was thinking it was just down to his shorts. But typically sexual assault involves some sort of sexual act, whether forced upon or forced to do. I haven't seen anyone other than you two refer to the depantsing as sexual assault though and didn't seem to have the details you guys must have. Seems it would have mentioned a little more about the specifics in the article.
I dont think it would be difficult to establish that 1. this involved unwanted touching 2. taking someone else's pants off is sexual
Ergo, unwanted sexual touching.
If he ripped open a woman's blouse....would you say that was sexual assault?
I have no idea....all this stuff comes down to intent. I don't think it was sexual assault at all. You guys do. I think we can leave it there because I don't want to get into all these various scenarios.
I imagine when blouses get ripped open it is at the beginning of something, not the full act.
Anyway, the accusations are misogyny, sexist, racist and this is a guy that got his pants pulled down below his waste at a work party as a joke. Now obviously he didn't find it funny and it was very appropriate but as mentioned I don't see it as sexual assault. Nor did the article go there or anyone but you and Slim that I have seen. And it doesn't fall into the other category either.
If anything it is sexual harrassment.
Sexual assault is serious stuff. Maybe I take it a little more seriously because I have known victims.
You say "leave it here" and the you go on to continue your misguided defense. Pantsing is unwanted sexual contact which is the very definition of what sexual assault is. Trying to dodge the comparison of ripping someone's blouse open makes you seem petty as does saying that me and Barkley6 have no frame of reference here as it regards to knowing someone who might've experienced this.
It's very simple: if the guy had his clothes forcibly removed that's sexual misconduct-which is illegal and starts us down the path of a sexual assault charge. The levels to which he could be charged varies, but if he wasn't rich, Sarver could be facing jail time imo.
If you want drop that's fine, but no need for the rest. These are serious allegations, and they should not be downplayed.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 3:32 pm
by Revived
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 4:16 pm
by Saberestar
Revived wrote:Who is this? Gambo?
No, Gambo isn't for sure.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:24 pm
by bwgood77
Saberestar wrote:Revived wrote:Who is this? Gambo?
No, Gambo isn't for sure.
It's probably some idiot who saw the Jalen stuff on tv and ran with it on the radio as if it were true...so Vigil is joking about it.
Maybe it is Bickley. I saw someone mentinon Bickley should be fired earlier in the thread and didn't know what they were referring to, but maybe this is it.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:16 am
by Ghost of Kleine
I know that this has been talked about ad naseum, But here's the actual video of the memorial roast.
Sports Illustrated (@SInow) Tweeted:
“Inappropriate, outrageous, and consistent with Robert Sarver’s pattern of behavior."
SI obtained video of sexually explicit jokes @Suns owner Robert Sarver made at a memorial "roast" in April.
@Alex_Prewitt & @Jon_Wertheim with more:
https://t.co/fwj8r9637X https://t.co/zbu50xWF4N ?s=20
Definitely a complete azzhat!
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:29 am
by MPT
Weeell....this all fell off quickly. Any insider hits on the NBA's investigation? Only bit I've seen is other publications opening up confidential dialogue options with potential victims.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:47 pm
by Ghost of Kleine
Sports Illustrated (@SInow) Tweeted:
If the allegations against Robert Sarver prove true, his earlier social-justice posturing can be seen only as counterfeit.
And if the NBA allows him to stay, you can dismiss the rest of their statements, too, writes @HowardBeck
https://t.co/q3VE3hizwo https://t.co/ZWxOVZL21g ?s=20
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 4:09 pm
by Slim Charless
Ghost of Kleine wrote:Sports Illustrated (@SInow) Tweeted:
If the allegations against Robert Sarver prove true, his earlier social-justice posturing can be seen only as counterfeit.
And if the NBA allows him to stay, you can dismiss the rest of their statements, too, writes @HowardBeck
https://t.co/q3VE3hizwo https://t.co/ZWxOVZL21g ?s=20
Sarver is done. Despite the numerous (shockingly high) amount of posters in here that are defending him.
Larry Ellison or Elon Musk hopefully.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:21 pm
by bwgood77
Slim Charless wrote:Ghost of Kleine wrote:Sports Illustrated (@SInow) Tweeted:
If the allegations against Robert Sarver prove true, his earlier social-justice posturing can be seen only as counterfeit.
And if the NBA allows him to stay, you can dismiss the rest of their statements, too, writes @HowardBeck
https://t.co/q3VE3hizwo https://t.co/ZWxOVZL21g ?s=20
Sarver is done. Despite the numerous (shockingly high) amount of posters in here that are defending him.
Larry Ellison or Elon Musk hopefully.
That second sentence in the tweet doesn't make sense unless they are continuing with the "if the allegations are true". Because if they were not, or many were not, the second part would be a weird thing to say.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Wed Dec 1, 2021 5:38 am
by Ghost of Kleine
https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/264878/Uncertainty-Remains-Whether-Persons-Under-NDA-Can-Speak-Freely-On-Investigation-Of-SunsAs the law firm hired by the NBA to investigate the workplace culture of the Phoenix Suns under Robert Sarver, it is unclear whether current and former employees who have signed non-disclosure agreements will be able to speak freely.
The Suns and the NBA declined to answer questions about whether former employees will be released from their confidentiality agreements.
A Suns spokesperson said the organization "is fully cooperating with the investigation" but declined to answer questions about the NDA release, citing the ongoing investigation.
NBA spokesperson Mike Bass also declined to answer the question, saying: "It would be irregular to detail the methods of an investigation while it is ongoing -- as doing so could potentially prejudice or otherwise jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. All those participating will be assured that the process will be fair and impartial."
One former Suns employee told ESPN they remain uncertain about whether they can speak freely about their experiences in Phoenix, saying they would be "happy to speak" with the investigators if they are assured they will not face legal consequences. The employee is hopeful that "the NBA would have my back."
Michael Selmi, an Arizona State University law professor who focuses on employment and discrimination law, told ESPN that he would expect all current and former employees who signed non-disclosure agreements to be allowed to speak to the league's investigators.
"If you do go after employees [with signed NDAs] that participate in the investigation, it would be hard to label that as 'full' cooperation,'" Selmi said.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Wed Dec 1, 2021 7:32 am
by Ghost of Kleine
Here's the full article in this link:
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/interviews-begin-phoenix-suns-investigation-uncertainty-remains-employees/story?id=81481116**
Continuing from where it left off in the quote above!"The reality is [NDAs are] hard to enforce," Selmi added. "Most people abide by them because the fear of penalties can be strong, but there's very little enforcement in courts over NDAs, so that means there is not as much case law about when NDAs are enforceable and when they're not."
Selmi explained that "fear of penalties" could include potential legal action from the Suns against employees who signed NDAs.
Under Article 24 of the league's constitution, NBA commissioner Adam Silver is granted broad powers "with protecting the integrity of the game of professional basketball and preserving public confidence in the League."
Such broad powers extend to investigations, including that Silver has the right to require "testimony and the production of documents and other evidence" from any employee, owner or member of the NBA.
In the weeks since the Suns provided employees with the contact information for the investigating attorneys, that contact information has been shared widely among former employees, with many reaching out to the investigators to inquire about times to meet, league sources said.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Wed Dec 1, 2021 6:33 pm
by Slim Charless
Let the people talk. Suns were showing off for the next owner last night.
Looking at you Larry Ellison and Iger.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:54 pm
by King4Day
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:22 pm
by Bogyo
Just came to post this, you beat me to it.
I think it means that they can disclose information about the Suns and the work environment, even though they signed the non-disclosure agreement about the issues prior to this.
So this could still mean two things: either Sarver(s lawyers) are very confident that they can win the case even with these stories coming out, as they are nothing more than the ESPN story and that's not enough to boot Sarver.
Or it could be the opposite - the NBA's lawyers are really tough and they got these people out of their NDA's despite Sarver's teams effort. We'll see.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:56 pm
by bwgood77
Bogyo wrote:Just came to post this, you beat me to it.
I think it means that they can disclose information about the Suns and the work environment, even though they signed the non-disclosure agreement about the issues prior to this.
So this could still mean two things: either Sarver(s lawyers) are very confident that they can win the case even with these stories coming out, as they are nothing more than the ESPN story and that's not enough to boot Sarver.
Or it could be the opposite - the NBA's lawyers are really tough and they got these people out of their NDA's despite Sarver's teams effort. We'll see.
Yeah, it was written about earlier that if they enforce the NDA's, yet also claim they have nothing to hide, then they must have something to hide and would not be a good look. They could still remain anonymous though depending on what they said or situations they talked about, it might be easy for the Suns to figure out who it was, though they'd have no recourse given they released them from an NDA.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:27 pm
by King4Day
Bogyo wrote:Just came to post this, you beat me to it.
I think it means that they can disclose information about the Suns and the work environment, even though they signed the non-disclosure agreement about the issues prior to this.
So this could still mean two things: either Sarver(s lawyers) are very confident that they can win the case even with these stories coming out, as they are nothing more than the ESPN story and that's not enough to boot Sarver.
Or it could be the opposite - the NBA's lawyers are really tough and they got these people out of their NDA's despite Sarver's teams effort. We'll see.
Duh that makes sense.
I was thinking of the employees losing anonymity. Not the fact that the job has NDA's. Thanks for the clarity!
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:10 pm
by bigfoot
bwgood77 wrote:Bogyo wrote:Just came to post this, you beat me to it.
I think it means that they can disclose information about the Suns and the work environment, even though they signed the non-disclosure agreement about the issues prior to this.
So this could still mean two things: either Sarver(s lawyers) are very confident that they can win the case even with these stories coming out, as they are nothing more than the ESPN story and that's not enough to boot Sarver.
Or it could be the opposite - the NBA's lawyers are really tough and they got these people out of their NDA's despite Sarver's teams effort. We'll see.
Yeah, it was written about earlier that if they enforce the NDA's, yet also claim they have nothing to hide, then they must have something to hide and would not be a good look. They could still remain anonymous though depending on what they said or situations they talked about, it might be easy for the Suns to figure out who it was, though they'd have no recourse given they released them from an NDA.
From what I gather, they are released from the NDA in order to speak with NBA investigators. However, they are not generally released from the NDA. That is, they can't be a source for the media or other parties.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2021 12:13 am
by bwgood77
King4Day wrote:Bogyo wrote:Just came to post this, you beat me to it.
I think it means that they can disclose information about the Suns and the work environment, even though they signed the non-disclosure agreement about the issues prior to this.
So this could still mean two things: either Sarver(s lawyers) are very confident that they can win the case even with these stories coming out, as they are nothing more than the ESPN story and that's not enough to boot Sarver.
Or it could be the opposite - the NBA's lawyers are really tough and they got these people out of their NDA's despite Sarver's teams effort. We'll see.
Duh that makes sense.
I was thinking of the employees losing anonymity. Not the fact that the job has NDA's. Thanks for the clarity!
In the second to last paragraph the article states that the employees can remain anoynymous and it can be confidential if they request it.
Re: Sarver ESPN story
Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2021 12:51 am
by Ghost of Kleine
Baxter Holmes (@Baxter) Tweeted:
Before their interviews, current and ex-employees have prepared extensive notes about allegations they wanted to share, dates of incidents and names of other witnesses to specific accounts. Three additional Wachtell lawyers were in Phoenix this week to help conduct interviews.
?s=20