Rondo suspension
- Thread starter upinsmoke
- Start date
- Status
I support the NBA's actions. The 1 game suspension was raising the bar, so they had to make sure they got it right. And that took a few more days than we would have preferred. Oh well.
Was a longer suspension warranted? That's certainly debatable, but the 1-game suspension is already an uptick in punishment.
So I'm good with what went down, and I'll give RR the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his apology.
I would also support the NBA in making it mandatory for all NBA players and coaches to participate in a 1 day LGBT training. I attended one recently and found it to be well worth the time.
The problem I have, however, is with all the holier-than-thou people who have come out of the woodwork to express their condemnation of RR and anyone else who has ever lashed out in anger or frustration, using words that - in hindsight - were clearly inappropriate and offensive, but decidedly used with the intention of making your target just as angry and frustrated as you were!
Hey - it happens. Are you truly without sin that you feel righteous in your condemnation?
Was a longer suspension warranted? That's certainly debatable, but the 1-game suspension is already an uptick in punishment.
So I'm good with what went down, and I'll give RR the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his apology.
I would also support the NBA in making it mandatory for all NBA players and coaches to participate in a 1 day LGBT training. I attended one recently and found it to be well worth the time.
The problem I have, however, is with all the holier-than-thou people who have come out of the woodwork to express their condemnation of RR and anyone else who has ever lashed out in anger or frustration, using words that - in hindsight - were clearly inappropriate and offensive, but decidedly used with the intention of making your target just as angry and frustrated as you were!
Hey - it happens. Are you truly without sin that you feel righteous in your condemnation?
I sense that you don't believe him, as much of your opinions are based on your assumptions.
The NBA did not stop and reset when Silver took over. Punishments for other incidents such as leaving the bench during the fight are still based on precedent. Silver can do what he wants, but some people will not agree. That's life.
You are making another wrong assumption. While Rondo deserves to be punished, I've already mentioned that the main issue is the excessive negative portrayal that he's receiving is way out of hand. I'm going to take Rondo's word for it that he didn't know Kennedy is gay. If you don't believe him, good for you. Sure, he said some bad things in the heat of the moment. But who hasn't? Many of his critics have done so at some point in their life. You punish him and move on. But vilifying him to be this bastard of a person is going too far. All I heard on the radio and read online this morning was what a bad person he is. I never knew there are so many saints in this world that has never said something hateful out of anger before.
As opposed to your opinions, which are based on Rondo's unsupported say so? I believe that Doc knew, while he still coached the Celtics, and I don't think that there's any chance that Doc knew, and Rondo didn't.
This is a concept error. No, the NBA did not, in fact, stop and reset. But Silver has demonstrated that he's willing to issue punishments that Stern was not. Like Sterling. And now, this. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that Silver would have punished Bryant the same as he punished Rondo, had he been the guy with final say-so when it happened.
Exactly what wrong assumption do you think that I'm making? You keep claiming that I'm making wrong assumptions, but you haven't actually articulated what it is you believe I'm assuming.
To paraphrase myself, I don't think that we're operating with the same value of "vilifying."
This is a concept error. No, the NBA did not, in fact, stop and reset. But Silver has demonstrated that he's willing to issue punishments that Stern was not. Like Sterling. And now, this. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that Silver would have punished Bryant the same as he punished Rondo, had he been the guy with final say-so when it happened.
Exactly what wrong assumption do you think that I'm making? You keep claiming that I'm making wrong assumptions, but you haven't actually articulated what it is you believe I'm assuming.
To paraphrase myself, I don't think that we're operating with the same value of "vilifying."
Even if Doc Rivers somehow knew, it doesn't mean Rondo would know. You are assuming that Doc is someone that will openly talk about another person's sexual orientation who may not want him to. I don't think so.
You don't agree with the concept because it's not yours. As I've said, not everyone will agree and that's life.
Re-read the earlier post, I've already stated very clearly about your assumption.
You are also not "operating with the same values of "different"" with Brick. Like I said, you are not agreeing with anything that doesn't echo you. That's ok for you. Just don't expect others to agree with you.
You don't agree with the concept because it's not yours. As I've said, not everyone will agree and that's life.
Re-read the earlier post, I've already stated very clearly about your assumption.
You are also not "operating with the same values of "different"" with Brick. Like I said, you are not agreeing with anything that doesn't echo you. That's ok for you. Just don't expect others to agree with you.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just not taking Rondo's word for it.
No, I don't agree with the concept, because I don't think it's true. It's not a question of what's "mine," which is kind of dumb, on the face of it. It's a question of whether I find it to be credible. Ownership doesn't enter into it.
No you didn't. You said, "I sense that you don't believe him, as much of your opinions are based on your assumptions.", and then you didn't say anything about what you thought my assumption was. You did, however, prop up some kind of odd straw man about the NBA resetting. You then accused me of making a second assumption, without actually say what the first thing I allegedly assumed was.
This is just as much of an ergo decedo fallacy as it was the first time you said it. You're basically accusing me of disagreeing with you solely because I am personally invested in being "right." It's insulting and, frankly, borders on slander.
No, I don't agree with the concept, because I don't think it's true. It's not a question of what's "mine," which is kind of dumb, on the face of it. It's a question of whether I find it to be credible. Ownership doesn't enter into it.
No you didn't. You said, "I sense that you don't believe him, as much of your opinions are based on your assumptions.", and then you didn't say anything about what you thought my assumption was. You did, however, prop up some kind of odd straw man about the NBA resetting. You then accused me of making a second assumption, without actually say what the first thing I allegedly assumed was.
This is just as much of an ergo decedo fallacy as it was the first time you said it. You're basically accusing me of disagreeing with you solely because I am personally invested in being "right." It's insulting and, frankly, borders on slander.
FWIW Marc Spears was on KHTK yesterday and said he knew Kennedy was gay for about 10 years. It was common knowledge. There is almost a 0% chance Rondo didn't know. I'm not sure why people are even arguing that.
He said something awful. He most likely did it to be hurtful because he was angry. Does he truly hate homosexuals? Who knows. You don't have to like him as a person. He has apologized. The team will make a decision after the year on whether to keep him or not. This will weigh on that decision. If Vlade and Co. truly think he is an awful person, they won't re-sign him. I would not begrudge anyone for now hating Rondo because of what he said. Personally I don't think he should be vilified, I also don't think he just gets a pass. It's somewhere in the middle.
I post on another board that is 97% straight younger male adults. Its a private board, there are no filters. F***** was used often enough (almost always in a joking manner) that it cause one of the members to speak out who is gay. He did not ask anyone to stop using the word, but he did explain why he didn't like it being used. It stopped almost immediately. Personally, I re-evaluated the use of that word amongst friends. I no longer use it. People can change, and sometimes it takes something like this for people to realize, holy crap, my words matter and they can be hurtful.
He said something awful. He most likely did it to be hurtful because he was angry. Does he truly hate homosexuals? Who knows. You don't have to like him as a person. He has apologized. The team will make a decision after the year on whether to keep him or not. This will weigh on that decision. If Vlade and Co. truly think he is an awful person, they won't re-sign him. I would not begrudge anyone for now hating Rondo because of what he said. Personally I don't think he should be vilified, I also don't think he just gets a pass. It's somewhere in the middle.
I post on another board that is 97% straight younger male adults. Its a private board, there are no filters. F***** was used often enough (almost always in a joking manner) that it cause one of the members to speak out who is gay. He did not ask anyone to stop using the word, but he did explain why he didn't like it being used. It stopped almost immediately. Personally, I re-evaluated the use of that word amongst friends. I no longer use it. People can change, and sometimes it takes something like this for people to realize, holy crap, my words matter and they can be hurtful.
It seems you are saying anything just to keep arguing. Your own words, "I believe that Doc knew, while he still coached the Celtics, and I don't think that there's any chance that Doc knew, and Rondo didn't.". That's an assumption in most people's book, except yours apparently.
What you are not seeing is, there is no universal right or wrong in someone's opinion of what should or shouldn't have happened. You calling it an "error" is you basing it on some form of correctness according to yourself.
You are referring to the wrong paragraph.
Read all of your own response to other people. What you've been saying to others is in some form what you are being offended by. You are just somehow more affected by it.
Btw as a sidenote, if anyone is wondering if there are long term ramifications for Boogies actions on the court, look no further than this case. Donaghy has long said that most of the "fixing" he did was actually just working with bookies on the spread when certain refs were working games, because he knew their internal biases against certain players. He also called out this issue between Kennedy and Rivers a long time ago.
NBA Professional Referees are anything but professional, and they clearly play favorites for some and have vendettas against others. I can only hope Boogie can turn it around in time before he becomes hated by the refs like Sheed/Iverson were.
NBA Professional Referees are anything but professional, and they clearly play favorites for some and have vendettas against others. I can only hope Boogie can turn it around in time before he becomes hated by the refs like Sheed/Iverson were.
If Iverson entered the NBA now, he would shoot more free throws than anyone else. Man, I miss that guy, used to love watching him play as a kid. I do agree with you that referees have agendas. I also find it quite amusing that Mr. Kennedy used our game as the game to come "out." Apparently, he has been the way he is for a long time, so why wait this long? Sounds like "bravery" alright. Doesn't excuse Rondo and his actions/words, but Mr. Kennedy sure made the moment count.
Sounds like referees are human. You yell at and berate someone, they are going to have naturally negative feelings about you. Those biases will come out, even if unintentional.
This a lesson for Boogie to learn. Human beings can't overcome being human. As a matter of fact, Boogie makes it a point to notice other people's behavior towards him. He needs to do the same. Especially with the refs, as they can impact his career.
This a lesson for Boogie to learn. Human beings can't overcome being human. As a matter of fact, Boogie makes it a point to notice other people's behavior towards him. He needs to do the same. Especially with the refs, as they can impact his career.
No, that's not an assumption. It's an interpretation of a claim that was made by a former NBA referee, as well as a credible NBA reporter.
No, what I called an error was your misinterpretation of what I typed. I did not, in fact, refer to a claim of there being "no universal right or wrong in someone's opinion of what should or shouldn't have happened" as an error. I never refuted that claim, and that wasn't even a claim that you or anyone else in this thread ever made in the first place.
And you just made the same error again. You asked, if '******' was so terrible, then why was Rondo suspended, and Bryant not ejected immediately? My answer to that question was that:
Your response to that was to use ergo decedo to accuse me of having a stake in being "right." It's untrue, and I'll say it again: it's slander, and I'll thank you to stop. I haven't stipulated to any belief in the "correctness" of anything in particular. You haven't asked me what I think is "correct," and I haven't actually said. You, sir, are the one making assumptions, not me.
I'm referring to the wrong paragraph about what?
Aside from you, @Peter_Gibbons, personally making false accusations about my character, you don't know what the hell offends me, because I haven't actually said what offends me. The only think in this thread that offends me is you accusing me of believing in things that I have not stipulated to believing in.
If you're so certain that I made a post in this thread stating what I was offended by, or what I was affected by, I'd take it as a kindness if you will direct me to it, so that I can explain to you exactly what it was that you misread.
No, what I called an error was your misinterpretation of what I typed. I did not, in fact, refer to a claim of there being "no universal right or wrong in someone's opinion of what should or shouldn't have happened" as an error. I never refuted that claim, and that wasn't even a claim that you or anyone else in this thread ever made in the first place.
And you just made the same error again. You asked, if '******' was so terrible, then why was Rondo suspended, and Bryant not ejected immediately? My answer to that question was that:
- Because neither one of them was ejected for saying '******'. Rondo was ejected, probably unfairly, because of the personal beef between him and Kennedy, and then he was suspended for the slur + failing to leave the court in a timely manner, and
- Because the guy who was in charge when Bryant said it is not the same guy who was in charge when Rondo said it, so what Silver did to Rondo cannot reasonably be applied to what Stern did not to to Bryant.
Your response to that was to use ergo decedo to accuse me of having a stake in being "right." It's untrue, and I'll say it again: it's slander, and I'll thank you to stop. I haven't stipulated to any belief in the "correctness" of anything in particular. You haven't asked me what I think is "correct," and I haven't actually said. You, sir, are the one making assumptions, not me.
I'm referring to the wrong paragraph about what?
Aside from you, @Peter_Gibbons, personally making false accusations about my character, you don't know what the hell offends me, because I haven't actually said what offends me. The only think in this thread that offends me is you accusing me of believing in things that I have not stipulated to believing in.
If you're so certain that I made a post in this thread stating what I was offended by, or what I was affected by, I'd take it as a kindness if you will direct me to it, so that I can explain to you exactly what it was that you misread.
When you use Tim Donaghy, who the NBA and refs association call a compulsive liar, as your source, you are making an assumption at best. Even Tim and the media are just assuming that if certain people knows, then Rondo must know. No one has any actual proof. Maybe I call it assumption and you want to call it an interpretation. But those are not facts, there is no arguing that.
You referred to my opinion on Silver and punishment as a "concept error". There was no misinterpretation. I referred to you saying it's tough to hold Silver responsible by stating that Silver can do what he wants, but not everyone will agree. You can't really call someone's opinion an error unless you have what you think is correct in mind.
You still don't get it. Everyone knows Rondo was ejected and then he yelled the slurs. My point was that if the slurs are considered to be bad enough to warrant a suspension on its own, then when Kobe said the same thing, he should've been suspended as well. Since Kobe's incident occurred first, then Rondo should be fined $100k instead of a suspension. I believe the league should have a standard on how punishment is given regardless of Silver or Stern. When you make up punishment as you go, that is resemblance of a dictatorship. I don't care if you agree with that. You are the one that started replying to the opinions I shared.
It's got nothing to do with "leaving the bench during a fight" being like "using homophobic slurs". The point was punishments for a new offense is usually based on a previous similar incident. Kobe used homophobic slurs at a ref previously and was fined 100k. That is the precedent to Rondo's case. This is what I believe in. You are trying to tell me that what I believe is an error again and it's not going to work, again.
You already explained what is insulting and borderline slander to you. That obviously offends you. What I say is what I'm getting from your replies. Just like you are interpreting my replies in a certain way, right or wrong. It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. From the start, I based my opinions on believing the man at his word that he did not know Kennedy is gay. You choose to believe Tim Donaghy instead. Based on that, we are not going to agree with anything.
Last edited:
While the knee jerk description for this type of workshop might be called "sensitivity training," it is actually designed to help individuals learn about the people of the LGBT community and the barriers they face from discrimination, ignorance, fear, and unjust laws. Through education, games, role-playing and shared experiences, one learns to be respectful and fair to individuals of the LGBT community. Such workshops can vary from 90 min to a full day.
BTW - Rondo probably cost himself >10 million dollars come contract time because of one word towards a formerly-closeted gay official.
He WAS going to command quite the premium on the open market - everyone was starting to talk about him as one of the premier point guards in the league.
Now the narrative is he's a knucklehead jackass horrible person who there's little way any organization is going to break the bank for when they can't risk him embarrassing their franchise too much.
He may have made it easier for the Kings to re-sign him, instead of him getting a huge payday elsewhere.
Silver lining, people.
That's about all Sac Kings fans can search for...
He WAS going to command quite the premium on the open market - everyone was starting to talk about him as one of the premier point guards in the league.
Now the narrative is he's a knucklehead jackass horrible person who there's little way any organization is going to break the bank for when they can't risk him embarrassing their franchise too much.
He may have made it easier for the Kings to re-sign him, instead of him getting a huge payday elsewhere.
Silver lining, people.
That's about all Sac Kings fans can search for...
There's no way this by itself costs Rondo much in his next contract. Assuming he "does everything right", including the reasonably good apologies he's already given, plus maybe some additional outreach, this won't hang over his head. Some fans will obviously never forget or even never forgive, but basketball teams will look at his play on the court.
You'd have to understand the profound levels of ignorance in American society to even grasp why such a training would be necessary.
Believe me, it is.
But as someone else said, it breaks barriers by having people meet a gay person, learn their experiences, see them as people. Sounds stupid but ignorance and fear are close partners with prejudice.
Hardaway went from "I hate gay people" to being the first to sign a petition to bring gay marriage to Florida. How? He went to a suicide prevention center for lgbt youth. That'll wake anyone up.
Rondo needs to do the same to make this right. And he can. It's up to him.
It's easy to hate "the <insert group>". Much harder to hate individual members of that group once you've shared a meal, shared an experience, heard their pain, heard their story etc. You might find that group isn't so different.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3544558
Believe me, it is.
But as someone else said, it breaks barriers by having people meet a gay person, learn their experiences, see them as people. Sounds stupid but ignorance and fear are close partners with prejudice.
Hardaway went from "I hate gay people" to being the first to sign a petition to bring gay marriage to Florida. How? He went to a suicide prevention center for lgbt youth. That'll wake anyone up.
Rondo needs to do the same to make this right. And he can. It's up to him.
It's easy to hate "the <insert group>". Much harder to hate individual members of that group once you've shared a meal, shared an experience, heard their pain, heard their story etc. You might find that group isn't so different.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3544558
That's not what I said. What I said was that it's hard to hold Silver responsible for the way that Stern chose to discipline or not discipline players. How did you manage to read what I wrote that incorrectly?
No you're the one who doesn't get it, so let me explain, since I now understand from the above where your error was coming from: I agree that, if the slurs are bad enough to warrant a suspension ("if", he says...), then they both should have been suspended, but Silver wasn't the guy who was in charge of suspending people when Bryant said it. So what do you expect Silver to do about it, go back and retroactively suspend Bryant, for stuff that Bryant said before Silver was in charge? Because, unless that's your expectation, there's not much point in bringing up what was and was not disciplined under the previous administration.
Wait, what? Are you saying that you think that a rule should continue to be the rule in perpetuity, regardless of changes in culture, education, etc.? That's a very ill-informed opinion to have. Silver should be compelled to let players and owners get away with everything that Stern did, just because that's just how it's been? What kind of anti-evolution thinking is that?
What I'm trying to tell you is that it's an error to believe that precedents are immutable and unchallengeable in the face of new information, new public sentiment. It's a precedent, not the third law of thermodynamics. All a precedent really means is that something happened once, and this is how we dealt with it then. It doesn't mean that this is therefore how we must continue to deal with it, until the end of time. That's absurd.
I'm not taking Tim Doneghy at his word. But I am taking Marc Spears at his word. I am taking Gregg Popvich at his word. I am taking JA Adande at his word. I am taking Jackie McMullan at her word. I am taking Rick Carlisle at his word... and so on. When one person says he didn't do/know something, and fifteen other people are saying he did, it's not my instinct to assume that the other fifteen are the ones being dishonest.
No you're the one who doesn't get it, so let me explain, since I now understand from the above where your error was coming from: I agree that, if the slurs are bad enough to warrant a suspension ("if", he says...), then they both should have been suspended, but Silver wasn't the guy who was in charge of suspending people when Bryant said it. So what do you expect Silver to do about it, go back and retroactively suspend Bryant, for stuff that Bryant said before Silver was in charge? Because, unless that's your expectation, there's not much point in bringing up what was and was not disciplined under the previous administration.
Wait, what? Are you saying that you think that a rule should continue to be the rule in perpetuity, regardless of changes in culture, education, etc.? That's a very ill-informed opinion to have. Silver should be compelled to let players and owners get away with everything that Stern did, just because that's just how it's been? What kind of anti-evolution thinking is that?
What I'm trying to tell you is that it's an error to believe that precedents are immutable and unchallengeable in the face of new information, new public sentiment. It's a precedent, not the third law of thermodynamics. All a precedent really means is that something happened once, and this is how we dealt with it then. It doesn't mean that this is therefore how we must continue to deal with it, until the end of time. That's absurd.
I'm not taking Tim Doneghy at his word. But I am taking Marc Spears at his word. I am taking Gregg Popvich at his word. I am taking JA Adande at his word. I am taking Jackie McMullan at her word. I am taking Rick Carlisle at his word... and so on. When one person says he didn't do/know something, and fifteen other people are saying he did, it's not my instinct to assume that the other fifteen are the ones being dishonest.
Actually, you misread it yourself. I said Silver can do whatever he wants, meaning no one is trying to hold him responsible. Though not everyone will agree with his actions. I'm surprise you are still figuring this out.
You deny that you trying to convince others of your own version of correctness, yet you keep doing it. At the same time, you are failing to comprehend a simple idea. The point is, I believe punishments should be based on similar previous incidents. What you can't accept is, not everyone will agree with your version. You keep trying to say other people made an error, yet you can't even admit that you are trying to sell your opinion as correct.
The NBA has a history of issuing unequal punishments for the same offense and it's got nothing to do with a new commissioner or a change of times in this case. Joakim Noah also used homophobic slurs at a fan during the same season as Kobe but only got a $50k fine. Noah said it to a fan, but if it's inappropriate to use it on one human being, it shouldn't be more tolerable to use on another. Laker fans and LA sports show hosts discussed it for a while as to why Kobe was unfairly fined double.
There hasn't been any significant changes since Kobe's incident even though you are trying to grossly dramatize it. If there was something significant that occurred that would affect how Rondo's case should be handled, then it should be considered. But unfortunately there hasn't been and you are basically trying to justify the discrepancy in punishment as if something significant did happen.
Look, you mentioned Tim Donaghy as one of your main sources from which you made your interpretation as fact. That was a wrong move, but don't backtrack as if you didn't believe him now. If I were you, I would be calling this an "error". But it's ok because it's your choice who you want to believe. I'm sure you understand that none of these people have said that they know Rondo knew Kennedy is gay for sure. I don't know which fifteen people you are talking about, but most reports that I've read said some people knew and it wasn't a big secret without mentioning whether they knew for a fact that Rondo knows. It's just all assumptions and you are going all in on it.
What are you talking about? The owners hold him responsible. He works for them.
It's not "my" version; it's Adam Silver's.
There's been some fairly significant legislature passed, and a SCOTUS ruling since then, which suggests that this is not correct. The climate has changed in this country on LGBT rights, and therefore the climate has changed on LGBT treatment, which includes the tolerance of homophobic slurs. The rules need to change accordingly.
I didn't mention him as one of my main sources. I mentioned him because he was the first person brought up in this thread, and not by me.
It's not "my" version; it's Adam Silver's.
There's been some fairly significant legislature passed, and a SCOTUS ruling since then, which suggests that this is not correct. The climate has changed in this country on LGBT rights, and therefore the climate has changed on LGBT treatment, which includes the tolerance of homophobic slurs. The rules need to change accordingly.
I didn't mention him as one of my main sources. I mentioned him because he was the first person brought up in this thread, and not by me.
- Status