RealGM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/b ... index.html

The NBA can't sweep something like that under the rug. To me, this is another example of a dark cloud that we can never seem to get over

.

The amazing thing to me is, it seems just when the league has a little bit of positivity, then we have one big negative and it reflects on all the players. Now people think every NBA player is carrying firearms into the locker room. I guess the next thing is that instead of us walking around those metal detectors in arenas, we should start walking through them. So many kids are doing it the right way in the league, but you get linked with one guy making one mistake.

This is bigger than a guns-in-the-locker-room story, because supposedly the alleged altercation stemmed from a gambling debt. I used to play cards with teammates, and you're not just playing for the sake of it. You're playing for money, but I never won or lost to the point I was angry with my teammates and wanted to fight or pull a gun.

I don't want to see Arenas made an example of, but this is not just a minor situation, and if we say that, it's ridiculous. This is one of those times that the league needs to say, "We will not condone this." Guys need to be proud of being an NBA player.

I like Arenas, but his initial reaction to this, in which he downplayed the seriousness of having guns in the locker room, was all wrong. It's wrong to make light of a firearm. That's when mistakes are made. 'Fess up, and don't blow it off like it wasn't a mistake. Say, "I made a terrible mistake with a gun. I need to make it right." This is nothing to be laughing about.

I love guns, and I respect guns. I have them in a secure place. When I was in Utah, I took all the necessary training with the gun and had my concealed-weapons permit, and I'll be the first to tell you I don't go anywhere in my vehicle without my weapon, but at no point has it ever occurred to me to take it inside anywhere, let alone an arena.

see again, he says that he wasnt never angry enough to pull a gun. He still thinks that Gil probably pulled a gun on Critt and he also thinks that Gil did it with anger. Those are not the real facts but thats what everyone thinks. They think Gil was super angry when he did all of this and had bad or malicious intent

Wonderful. Karl's done hunting little Mexican girls, but he's saddled up on his high-horse just fine.

People are so self-righteous. I swear. Look speeding is against the law too. And can kill people a hell of a lot easier than unloaded weapons. But, if Gil was caught speeding and the news story broke that said actually Gil was in a five car police chase (when it never happened), I would hope Gil would be out making fun of the situation. Why? Because it's funny!!!

One of the issues that Karl Malone's "article" highlights (as did several conversations I've had with friends today) is how the first story is sticking -- despite multiple reports indicating that initial report was incorrect. Peter Vecsey established the narrative from the outset: Arenas and Crittenton pulled guns on each other in a dispute over a gambling debt. Never mind that Vecsey is non-credible to start with. Never mind that every indication and bit of genuine reporting done since Vecsey's article indicates that he got nearly everything wrong. To many, the first story is still the official version.

OK, Karl’s right. Gil should not have brought guns into the locker room, but is this article really about that?

I think the hidden message Karl is trying to relay is that he's upset that Gil acknowledges his kids' existence and actually truly cares for them. That's a big no-no in the world of Karl Malone.

TheSecretWeapon wrote:One of the issues that Karl Malone's "article" highlights (as did several conversations I've had with friends today) is how the first story is sticking -- despite multiple reports indicating that initial report was incorrect. Peter Vecsey established the narrative from the outset: Arenas and Crittenton pulled guns on each other in a dispute over a gambling debt. Never mind that Vecsey is non-credible to start with. Never mind that every indication and bit of genuine reporting done since Vecsey's article indicates that he got nearly everything wrong. To many, the first story is still the official version.

This is the same thing Ive been saying all along so my question to you is do you think that will help or hurt Gil when it comes to dealing with Stern? One second I think it may help when he finds out the story isnt totally as bad as people keep reporting it but the next second I think that the 1st story has gotten so big that even though Stern says he will only react to the real story, I think he really is going to hammer Gil because of the perception from the 1st story that everyone has ran with

ROID RAGE

i wonder what Ja Rule has to say about this? WHERE IS JA? I NEED TO MAKE SENSE OF THIS!!


edit: for those of you unfamiliar with the chapelle show bit... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C08J_G5ml4E

dlts20 wrote:

TheSecretWeapon wrote:One of the issues that Karl Malone's "article" highlights (as did several conversations I've had with friends today) is how the first story is sticking -- despite multiple reports indicating that initial report was incorrect. Peter Vecsey established the narrative from the outset: Arenas and Crittenton pulled guns on each other in a dispute over a gambling debt. Never mind that Vecsey is non-credible to start with. Never mind that every indication and bit of genuine reporting done since Vecsey's article indicates that he got nearly everything wrong. To many, the first story is still the official version.

This is the same thing Ive been saying all along so my question to you is do you think that will help or hurt Gil when it comes to dealing with Stern? One second I think it may help when he finds out the story isnt totally as bad as people keep reporting it but the next second I think that the 1st story has gotten so big that even though Stern says he will only react to the real story, I think he really is going to hammer Gil because of the perception from the 1st story that everyone has ran with

I don't think the initial story is going to make any difference to how Stern handles this. I think it's bad enough that Gil brought guns into the locker room. Then Gil has compounded the issue with his public comments and that idiotic "finger shooting" stuff in Philly. All that suggests that Gil does not understand how serious it is to have brought the guns to the locker room in the first place -- regardless of what his statement may have said.

I suspect that if Gil had kept his yap shut and not acted like a moron AFTER the story hit and he should have understood how serious all this is, that Stern probably would have given him 10-12 games and a stiff fine. Calling Stern "mean" and saying that he hoped the media would eventually apologize to him has to be infuriating to Stern. I initially thought he'd get 10 games and a $25k fine. Now I'm thinking it might be for the rest of this season plus a max fine.

Indefinitely means as long as Stern can keep him suspended, TSW.