A Tangled Web

Was it really a shocker when the audio tape leaked out of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling basically confirming to his girlfriend V. Stiviano that he's a racist? No. He's been accused of it before and even though his cases were "settled" out of court and in Elgin Baylor's case, thrown out for lack of evidence, it had been pretty much known that Sterling was racist. He is a slumlord who would often refuse to rent out his properties to people of African-American or Latin descent.

Money Talks

What baffles me is why would the NAACP even decide to give him a lifetime achievement? Money talks. He has donated money to the NAACP before and in the words of Leon Jenkins, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP "The Los Angeles NAACP intention to honor Mr. Sterling for a lifetime body of work must be withdrawn, and the donation that he's given to the Los Angeles NAACP will be returned." In Sterling's own words on the leaked tape, he gives his players "food and cars and clothes and houses." In Sterling's mind, money is the ultimate power and he treats his employees and players as property or charity cases. He doesn't "give" his players all the luxuries he claims. They earn him millions of dollars through their playing. They aren't "charity cases", they are his money makers.

Girlfriend/Wife

And what of his girlfriend V. Stiviano? She's African-American and Hispanic. She's also pretty, so as far as Sterling probably thinks, as many plantation owners in America's slave days did, as long as she's pretty, it's okay to overlook her ethnicity. She's everything racially that he hates. From her standpoint, her attorney released on Sunday night, "Neither Ms. Stiviano, nor this office has ever alleged that Ms. Stiviano is, or ever was, Mr. Sterling's girlfriend." Funny, because Donald Sterling bought her a $1.8 million duplex, a Ferrari, two Bentleys, and a Range Rover, along with being given thousands of dollars in spending money and jewelry that belonged to Rochelle Sterling, Donald's wife.

That's right, his wife. He's still married. Despite publicly dating Stiviano, and her appearing on his side at the Clippers games, he's married to Rochelle Sterling still. Rochelle Sterling sued Stiviano to return the property because she is claiming it's community owned property due to her marriage with Donald.

The Recording

Now Stiviano is claiming that she never leaked the tape, nor did she intentionally try to make it. So it was "accidentally" recorded and someone "stole it"? Listening the audio recording, it almost seems as if the recording was a set up by the girlfriend. The questions that she asks Donald Sterling almost come off as scripted and more closer to the manner of an interview than a natural conversation a person would have with someone they're dating. Did she do it on purpose? I'm betting yes, but what was her reason? The Los Angeles Clippers President Andy Roeser is claiming she embezzled millions of dollars. Was this her way to blackmail Sterling? Maybe, although she had been still by Donald Sterling's side at the most recent games (before his ban). Did he know he was being recorded? I highly doubt it otherwise I don't think he would have been so blunt about his beliefs to her.

1st Amendment

One argument being made on Sterling's behalf or at least in his defense is that it's his 1st amendment right to believe and say anything he wants. While that's technically true, the 1st amendment doesn't protect someone from the consequences of saying something that could be potentially damaging to their own self. While you are allowed to say anything you want, you aren't given a license to say anything you want without public opinion judging you for what you say.

The NBA bylaws for the owners also have extreme scenarios for when one of the owners hurts the reputation of the league so badly, that he or she can be forced to sell their share of the team. When Sterling purchased the Clippers, he was aware of this.

The Future

The NBA owners are putting it to a vote to force the sale of the Clippers. It takes seventy-five percent of the owners to do this, but with all the momentum this has, I have a hard time believing an owner would put his own reputation on the line by voting to keep Sterling as the owner. Mark Cuban has already expressed his belief that this could lead to a "slippery slope" of owners voting other owners out for reasons such as not liking their fellow owners, but I believe this is more of the exception to the rule, rather than the new standard. This is an extreme case and needs to be dealt with swiftly by the owners getting rid of Sterling. The NBA has taken over the ownership of a team in the past (New Orleans Hornets), so a precedent has been set and I belief would be a better solution than to let Sterling continue to own the Clippers. Commissioner Silver has already banned Sterling for life from the NBA and fined him for $2.5 million (the NBA maximum), but it's still not enough.

It's time for the NBA to show the public that racism needs to be eradicated. It's time for Donald Sterling to leave the NBA and let someone else take over. It's better for the Clippers and better for the NBA. Game three against the Warriors was a disaster as the team seemed to be playing with a weight on their shoulders, but they turned it around in time for game four. I hope that this will unify the Clippers during their playoff run and motivate them to play harder for themselves.

The Transfer Rule

As the new year for Major League Baseball, there was debate about the two big rule changes for the 2014 season. Instant replay and catcher collisions were the topics that all the news outlets for the up and coming season. In the first two weeks these two new rules have been some major talking points, but a third rule change that flew under the radar is having just as big of an effect on the game as the first two.

The MLB instilled a new transfer rule that has changed the outcome of games multiple times already. When a player makes a catch, if he doesn't grab the ball with his throwing hand cleanly, the hitter/runner is now safe as a result of the incomplete transfer.

The problem is in many of these occurrences is that the fielder has made a clear catch and even taken a few steps and then bobbled the ball, only to lose the out. When right fielder Elliot Johnson of the Cleveland Indians caught a ball, took three full steps, crashed in the wall, took one more step, and then bobbled the ball, the umpires ruled the hitter safe. After the game Terry Francona, the manager for the Indians was asked by the press about what he thought about the play. He joked that if anything, he would have thought the umpires would have called traveling if anything.

In another incident, the Texas Rangers JP Arencibia took a throw at home plate as part of a force play. He stepped off the plate to throw the ball to first base, but bobbled the ball. Not only did he catch the ball, but he took steps to position himself to throw the ball. After reviewing replay, the umpires rules Dustin Ackley safe because of the transfer rule. Manager Ron Washington came out to argue, but was thrown out before ever getting a chance to argue. After the game, he was quoted as saying, "“We’ve got to do something about it. I understand the rule and I understand their interpretation of it. I just don’t agree with it.”

On another play, Rays manager Joe Maddon was upset on a double play that was ruled safe on all ends because when second baseman Ben Zobrist received the ball and tried to turn two, he bobbled the ball as the runner slid into him. Joe Maddon said, "He was absolutely out,'' Maddon said. "Part of it is that everything is slowed down, there is instant replay, it is slow. You could easily discern that Zo had the ball in his glove with his foot on the bag and the runner is out, period. So as we move this forward there had to be a differentiation between that and the two-handed transfer. … I do believe that has to be revisited.''

This new transfer rule has become a hindrance to the game. If a player has clearly made a catch, the hitter/runner should be out. Simple as that. Several times a day, the transfer rule comes into effect and in some cases, it has changed the outcome of the game.

Unfortunately MLB only changes rules once a year at the Winter Meetings. In this case, it would be advisable that they hold an emergency meeting as soon as possible to change the rule back to it's previous interpretation. If this bleeds into the playoffs and the World Series, we could see a massively important game of the season, hurt by a new rule that is clearly wrong.

The biggest reason to change this rule is that a fan should be able to watch a play and even if they don't like a rule or the call, understand why the umpire has ruled in a certain way. In a couple of cases, one involving the injury of a player, a player did drop the ball, but the hitter was still ruled out. Joe Maddon, the Rays manager affected by this call asked for a clear cut answer from the umpire why this play was ruled out. The umpire cited the injury and could tell him where the actual line is between catch and transfer. If the umpire doesn't know exactly how to interpret the rule, how is a fan in the stands or watching TV supposed to know (this can also be said for the catcher collision rule too)?

MLB....please change the rule back so fans don't have to pull out their hair over this stupid, new rule.