OH MY FUCKING GOD. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

[Patrick Bateman]

Is anyone else watching this????

Artest just jumped into the seats and beat the shit out of somebody.

Now a fan just jumped onto the court.


"Ron Artest has a look in his eye that is very scary" -commentator


This is total anarchy.

Edit: Ok, about ten minutes has passed. I didn't think the Pacers would be able to leave the court. Did anyone else see that Ruben Studdard look-alike fan get about 10 sucker punches in on one of the Pacers? He just went in and started banging, about 6 rows back.

[Tonyo33]

Is anyone else watching this????

Artest just jumped into the seats and beat the shit out of somebody.

Now a fan just jumped onto the court.


"Ron Artest has a look in his eye that is very scary" -commentator


This is total anarchy.

The fans are getting sprayed with mace.
The Pacers cant even get off the court.
Stephen Jackson cracked some guy. This is insane.

[TenderBranson]

Hahaha...that was completely awesome.

Did anyone see Saunders shit his pants when they kicked it back to the studio?

This made my night.

[bcarlzson]

craziest shit ever.


EDIT: i love the look on the one guys face with glasses when he realizes artest is comming to kill him.

[loathing]

That was a thing of beauty.

Apparently REGGIE MILLER even got involved in one of the other minor brawls.

Artest slamming that dude's face into a seat.

Apparently, the guy in the white hat who punched Artest in the back of the head a couple times threw the beer, and Artest annihilated the wrong guy.

O'Neal destroyed some fat guy on the court with a running shot to the jaw.

God this is awesome.

[Noneedforthat]

The guy that Artest was going after was talking shit. Then he realized Artest was coming to beat his ass, and shut the fuck up.

I also like Artest punching the guy on the floor as soon as the guy started to say shit.

Watch closely, when Jermaine O'Neal is trying to get in the stands going back to the locker room, one of the Pacers players picks up A DUSTPAN and cocks it like a baseball bat.

Seriously, no matter what you say about the players, wasn't it nice to see a bunch of idiots get exactly what they deserved? Every fan that ran out on the court should have gotten their ass beat by a Pacer and then hauled off to jail. Artest was a fool, but if you throw shit at a guy with a history of anger problems when he's in the heat of the battle and trying to be the good guy, you reap what you sow.

[spastic_colon]

That was absolutely brilliant. The most entertaining basketball game I've ever seen.

45.9 seconds left in the game. Mayhem. Riots. Cats and dogs lying together.

Oh yes, the end days are upon us. Or, I believe, Ron Artest's end days are upon us. I think this will be his last NBA game.

[jojo]

Oh yes, the end days are upon us. Or, I believe, Ron Artest's end days are upon us. I think this will be his last NBA game.
And this opinion is based on what?

[spastic_colon]

I think he'll bear the brunt of the NBA's wrath about the incident, as he was the first player into the stands. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him suspended for the rest of the season over this incident.

I also believe that if he is suspended for the rest of the season, he won't be back in '05/06. Between his apathy and his aspiring rap career, I don't know that any team would really give him another chance. He hasn't performed as expected, and seems quite ignorant of the way things really work.

Maybe he'll get a dose of reality. Maybe all the ridicule he's gotten over his leave of absence request will snap him to attention. But I doubt it.

These are, of course, just my thoughts. YMMV.

[jojo]

I think he'll bear the brunt of the NBA's wrath about the incident, as he was the first player into the stands. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him suspended for the rest of the season over this incident.

I also believe that if he is suspended for the rest of the season, he won't be back in '05/06. Between his apathy and his aspiring rap career, I don't know that any team would really give him another chance. He hasn't performed as expected, and seems quite ignorant of the way things really work.

Maybe he'll get a dose of reality. Maybe all the ridicule he's gotten over his leave of absence request will snap him to attention. But I doubt it.

These are, of course, just my thoughts. YMMV.
Be quiet unless you have any idea of what you are talking about. Clearly, on this topic, you don't.

[Cus]

Not gonna lie, I feel really bad for Ron Artest. He was trying so hard to keep Crazy-Ron bottled up, but the cup to the face was the straw that broke the donkey's back.

The Pistons CEO was just being interviewed and had the balls to criticize Artest for laying on the table instead of staying on the floor. "We have boundaries for a reason," the bastard says. Now that takes balls. Hundreds of your fans were just assaulting an entire NBA team and you call someone out for avoiding a fight by laying in the wrong spot.

The people who should really catch heat in this situation are the Detroit players. The fans were dipshits and the Pacers over-reacted, but as soon as the brawl started breaking out in the crowd, every Piston should have been there backing the players up. Rasheed was the only one I saw who made the right decision and went in there to try to either calm shit down or whoop some fan ass.

Detroit has now locked up the "Worst City in America" title for at least 2 more years. Sorry Gary.

[jojo]

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/suspensions.html

[TheRick]

O'Neal destroyed some fat guy on the court with a running shot to the jaw.

Yeah, and that was right after he had gotten up from getting hit by Artest.

The guy who had Ruben Studdard take a few cheapshots at him was Fred Jones, and Jamaal Tinsley was the guy who had the dustpan. I like how one person decided to throw a fucking chair at Jermaine O'Neal.

[IndyDave]

I think he'll bear the brunt of the NBA's wrath about the incident, as he was the first player into the stands. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him suspended for the rest of the season over this incident.


Your name is synonymous with your knowledge of basketball.

What should happen, and won't, is that Detroit should loose the privilege of having any more home games for the rest of the season. We had an incident like this in highs school football, where the fans were known to be assholes and racists, that caused a local high school to loose home games for a period of 1-2 years (not sure). Detroit should have to play the rest of the season on the road. I know this is far-fetched, but just my opinion. Then the fans could then feel like shit for costing their team any chance at even a playoff experience.

The reality is, Artest, O'Neal and Jackson will get hefty suspensions. Probably in the 7-10 game area. A majority of the rest of both teams will get suspended, as well, probably spread out over time so that each team can field a team.

Detroit, as a team, will get a huge fine. I wouldn't be surprised to see a redecorating process on the floor area at the Palace. Maybe lose the first 10 rows, or so, and have the section around the tunnel blocked off.

The real fuckups here are the security and police of detroit. The fans should have been cleared from the tunnel area as the Pacers were leaving, at the very least.

Personally, the fans got what they deserved. The truth is, everyone in the joint is going to be suing someone. It's the American way.

Several of the fans will be prosecuted. Anyone who went on the floor and got caught, for sure, plus the guy who threw the cup.

Artest will be demonized for this, which is total bullshit. I mean, what would Reaper do if some guy who didn't like the army launched a beer cup at his dome?

I have to giggle when I see the replay of Jackson rocking that idiots dome. That's going to leave a mark, tomorrow.

Edit: Seems ESPN is calling it fair. I could be wrong on the blame Artest thing.

[Drink The Ass]

I mean, what would Reaper do if some guy who didn't like the army launched a beer cup at his dome?


Be careful, I'm not sure how long you've been on the board, but in the snippets of recaps I've read Reaper always seems to be the voice of reason. No one questions his ability to wreak hell, but I think he seems to be very careful about when to unleash it. I regonize that you were just using him as an example most likely and not specifically him, and agree that Artest was laying there harmlessly on the scorers table was clearly provoked.

Also, it didn't appear to me as if he was throwing punches at the 1st fan, he was merely holding him down. It is certainly within anyone's rights to defend themselves though.

[IndyDave]

I regonize that you were just using him as an example most likely and not specifically him, and agree that Artest was laying there harmlessly on the scorers table was clearly provoked.


He's the first "calm guy that could potentially kick some ass if provoked" that came to mind.

I was going to use Tucker, but I couldn't picture Tucker laying out a arena of fans like I could Reaper, even if he would never have done so.

[Bizznatch]

Also, it didn't appear to me as if he was throwing punches at the 1st fan, he was merely holding him down. It is certainly within anyone's rights to defend themselves though.

You know why it didn't appear that Artest was throwing punches? Because he was banging that dude's head against the top of the chair.

[icyhotstunta]

Condidering Artest had just scored 24 points against one of the league's better defenses I doubt that will be his last game ever as some idiot said. There will be 5+ game suspensions for Artest, O'Neil, and Jackson(who looked like he was ready to brawl with anybody the second Wallace got fouled) Wallace probably will get a game or two for severly overreacting and that will be the extent of it.
This is not a darkest day for the NBA, if anything it works out good for them because their Christmas Day re-match coupled with the Shaq-Kobe reunion will probably one of their higest rated telecasts ever.

[Ski]

Also, it didn't appear to me as if he was throwing punches at the 1st fan, he was merely holding him down. It is certainly within anyone's rights to defend themselves though.

I agree that it didn't appear that Artest hit the 1st fan and that he did just grab him. I stilll don't buy the defending himself bullshit. He got hit with a drink, not a chair or one of the many bricks laying around the Pistons' basket from the first quarter. Self-defense only justifies using enough force to deter the threat (lawyers, am I right?). Artest's actions did not protect him from harm, they put him in harm's way.

I think Stephen Jackson is the one who should get the brunt of the punishment. He's the one who came over to the first skirmish in the stands and completely clocked a fan and I thought I saw him re-igniting the brawl a few times.

The Pistons should get a huge fine for not getting security personnel over there immediately.

[Bizznatch]

Personally I think justice was served. Everyone got about what they deserved in the melee. As far the Pistons getting fined for not getting security there immedietely, you've got to be joking. You can't have enough security to defuse a situation like that. I think the security guards did a pretty good job of making sure no one got killed. Also, shit like this has NEVER happened before at an NBA game (at least to my knowledge) so there's no precedent for some player jumping over the scorers table and slamming some idiot's head into a chair over and over. If anything, the Pistons should be fined for the behavior of their fans. Throwing bottles and things onto the court is unacceptable. Artest, Jackson, and O'Neill will get suspensions. Wallace will get one too, albeit a smaller one than any of the Pacers.

[IndyDave]

If anything, the Pistons should be fined for the behavior of their fans. Throwing bottles and things onto the court is unacceptable. Artest, Jackson, and O'Neill will get suspensions. Wallace will get one too, albeit a smaller one than any of the Pacers.


Amen to that.

The saddest part of all of this is that I expect to see changes made in the proximity of fans to the court.

I've been to 40-50 NBA games where I was within arms reach of the players, and that is one of the things that make the game so great. I wager that is going to change. At the very least, there will be a buffer zone between the seats and the floor.

I can remember going to a Pacers-Magic game back in the Shaq-Anfernee days. I was seated in the row of seats behing the Magic bench and, yes, had quite a bit of beer in me. Being young and stupid, we were yelling at Shaq after a hard foul and shoving match with Rik Smits. Shaq stood up from the bench and turned around and gave us a shitty look. I'll be honest, we shut up. That man is huge from 5 feet away. Still, I never even considered launching a beer at one of these guys. amazing.

The people who will suffer the most for this are the fans who aren't drunk idiots. The shot of the little boy crying brings it all home.

[OnTilt]

They should play this fighting clip on those "I love the NBA" promo commercials.

[Chim-Chim]

All I know is someone's gonna make some nice cash in court for this one.

[Shock]

They should play this fighting clip on those "I love the NBA" promo commercials.

Let's get it started, indeed.

[mike]

The two best parts about the fight, the reaction of the guy talking shit to Artest, after realizing he is coming after him. Then, the fat dude that ran on the court as Artest was walking off, that dude took one hell of a shot to the face. It was great.

I really hope they put a full clip up this up somewhere, the cheap shit 1 minute clip on espn honks.

[jojo]

Be quiet unless you have any idea of what you are talking about. Clearly, on this topic, you don't.
Since you asked for elaboration, here you go:

First, Artest's apathy has led to his best start ever. An "apathetic" Artest plays harder than 99% of the league. Outside of claiming to be banged up and requesting to recharge his battery, what possibly could make you believe that he is apathetic in the least? In fact, doesn't the foul with 45.9 seconds left show that he is too wound up, not apathetic?

Second, Artest's rap career. This is the reason why he is apathetic, right? Except for its his production career and not his rap career that you're supposedly talking about, since he has said that he wasnts to set up a website to give his own music away. As many times as he's mentioned the ALLURE album coming out, it wouldn't be hard to figure that out by paying any sort of attention.

Third, we have Artest's finances. Artest nearly bankruptcy his rookie year. He is in what, the second year of his 6-year, $42 million extension. He is nowhere near financially stable now, considering his past spending habits. All of this is well documented, but he's going to leave all that money on the table?

No, because no team is going to take a chance on him after his year-long suspension. Except for the fact that this is the NBA. That money is guaranteed, and the Pacers have to pay him through about 2008.

And all of this is without addressing your opinions, which I also disagree with. Now, be quiet on topics you don't know anything about, or be gone.

[Chandler]

Let's see, fans and players show their asses on national television... the Vibe Awards has to be edited heavily because of a huge brawl (that included a stabbing)...

Is it just me or does this seem to be symptoms of a larger problem within the culture we have today?

I blame both the fans and the players, but Artest backed away after Wallace over-reated to the hard foul. I understand that getting hit in the melon with a cup isn't pleasant, but backing away would have been the better choice. O'Neal's antics were terrible as well.

It's everyone's fault... not just the players, not just the fans. But with the same thing happening last week at the Vibe Awards, perhaps we should take a deeper look.

[Johnny Upton]

You have had players going into the stands in the past - Mike Millbury hitting a fan with a shoe. So what was the cause in the 70's?

[ibealllike]

footage (http://mfile.akamai.com/12942/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2004/1120/3935750.200k.asx)

[RunDownHouse]

And now Clemson/South Carolina? That's just ridiculous.

[RedMafia]

Artest, Wallace, Oneal , and Jackson are now suspended indefinitely. What that is going to mean in game time who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if after it was all said and done it turned out to be 20 games a piece.

I can understand the three pacers players being suspended, but I don't know why Wallace was lumped in there. He shoved Artest in the face which I could see getting suspended for a game or a heavy fine, seems he got the raw end of the deal there.

As far as Artest never playing again, I highly doubt that. Look at Spree...he choked his own coach. If he still got a contract, I don't see how anyone would look at Artest any different.

[5+4=9]

Artest should be put to death. Wallace was completely justified in laying his ass out, Artest had been hacking him all quarter. If it were me i would have thrown a fucking cinderblock at him, not some lame ass cup.

It was entertaining though, i wont lie.

[Chandler]

Artest should be put to death. Wallace was completely justified in laying his ass out, Artest had been hacking him all quarter. If it were me i would have thrown a fucking cinderblock at him, not some lame ass cup.

I nominate this as the dumbest statement on this thread.

[moge]

Thats ridiculous, I believe Artest will most likely be back this season. If he is suspended for the season, he'll be ready to come back... and I can name many teams that would be drooling over the thought of him playing for them.

[TenderBranson]

Artest should be put to death. Wallace was completely justified in laying his ass out, Artest had been hacking him all quarter. If it were me i would have thrown a fucking cinderblock at him, not some lame ass cup.

I nominate this as the dumbest statement on this thread.

You beat me to it Chandler, this statement is painfully retarded. 5+4=9, do you understand how the game of basketball is played? Do you understand the concept of retaliation? Are you limited to the concept of simple math?

I am not justifying Artest's actions, but put in a similar situation I can't say I would act any differently.

[Uncouth]

A lot of people on here, and even many of the commentators, seem to be placing all the blame on the fans. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was acceptable to go into the stands after a fan when you make millions of dollars a year to throw a ball into a hoop.

Everyone involved was wrong and should be punished-fans, players, whoever.

[IndyDave]

Anyone else catch the Pacers-Magic game last night?

The Pacers 3rd string came very close. If anything, this has been great for our rookies.

There wasn't a single starter on the floor. The players that played were the 7th-12th man unit. Pretty amazing that they were down by 2 with 38 seconds to go. The best part was, it wasn't like Orlando was winning and just got relaxed, it was a close game the entire way.

Amazing to see guys like the rookie David Harrison (29th overall pick) scoring 19 points, 8 boards and 2 blocks. How about last years' 49th pick, James Jones, putting up 12 points, pulling 12 boards and giving you 3 steals. He only played in about a half dozen games last year.

Nice to know that even if the starters are complete idiots, you can still see an entertaining game.

[gemlikeflame]

Didn't Artest say that after recording his musical album, he would really enjoy a month off?

Looks like he got his wish...

[jtromb33]

According to a Detroit news station (http://www.clickondetroit.com/sports/3936202/detail.html) the suspensions are going to be handed down as follows:
Artest -- 30 games
Jackson/O'Neal -- 20 games each
Wallace -- 5 games

[CJ*]

Did these two teams have a history of rivalry or something?

Btw, this is the best thread I've read on this board in a long time. That, or I'm just really stoned.

[Shock]

Did these two teams have a history of rivalry or something?


Yes.




Btw, this is the best thread I've read on this board in a long time. That, or I'm just really stoned.

More than likely it's #2.

[13Apollo]

Didn't Artest say that after recording his musical album, he would really enjoy a month off?

Looks like he got his wish...


This is the best addition to the thread.
It brings a new thought to the table that noone surely had thought of yet. . .and an ugly ass avatar. Jesus.

[IndyDave]

I'll never doubt you again, Jojo. Artest is out for the season, Jackson for 30, O'Neal, for 25, Wallace for 6 and several other players for one game apiece.

ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1928540)

[Chandler]

I think the 30 game and 25 game suspensions for Jackson and O'Neal were warranted. But the season long one for Artest was a little over the top. I realize he has a history of bad behavior, but come on. Why base the length of his suspension partly on his past behavior, rather that solely on this incident?

On a basketball note, I think we can safely assume the Pacer's are done. If they aren't, it will be the biggest validation of the Sport's Idiot's "Ewing Theory" in history.

[NoSurprises]

So for the next 25 games at least they'll be playing their bench and dressing injured players: Where do they go from here? [besides the bottom of the standings]

[jojo]

Remember people, this is only round one. This will go in front of an arbitrator for the union's grievance next.

[IndyDave]

On a basketball note, I think we can safely assume the Pacer's are done. If they aren't, it will be the biggest validation of the Sport's Idiot's "Ewing Theory" in history.

I'm not so sure you can say this. Sure, the #1 slot in the playoffs are out of the picture but we will have most of the team ready for playoffs (sans Artest) in time. We didn't have Stephen Jackson last year and, although he is no Artest, he can score and play the 3.

I doubt we can win a championship this year, but I still we've got a shot at making the conference finals.

Edit: I admit, I didn't think Artest was gone for the season. Vernon Maxwell only got 10 games for punching a fan in the stands. I know this situation was worse, but how much of that is the blame of the Detroit fans?

[D-Rock]

Why base the length of his suspension partly on his past behavior, rather that solely on this incident?

I think they made the decision based solely on this incident. And I still think they got it wrong. On the videotapewe we can't see what Artest was doing to the otherwise innocent guy he initially attacked. It might be a lot worse than the tape indicated. More to the point, Artest made a bee line for that guy because Ron thought he threw the empty beer cup at him. The problem with that explanation is Harry Potter still had his cup full of beer in his hand.

Focus: Here's my take on it. Artest storming the stands was an incredibly ill-advised decision. The players who followed as fighters (O'Neal, Jackson and Tinsley) were all in the worong. Tinsley not being suspended surprises me. The only reason he didn't make it into the stands is the security guard restrained him.

I would suspend the players as follows

Jackson: Rest of season.
Artest and O'Neal: Until after the all-star break.
Tinsley: 10 games
Wallace: 5 games

I think what Jackson did was incredibly dangerous and ill-advised. He threw not one but two punches into the base of a guy's skull who had his back turned to him. Jackson is very, very lucky that he didn't land either cleanly or the focus of the stories would be about a fan getting paralyzed (or worse). I've watched the available tape multiple times and its still unclear how that particular fan provoked Jackson.

Some other thoughts: The fans had every single right to defend themselves the second Artest took the first guy down. Would that be the best decision in the circumstances? Probably not.

Rasheed Wallace, Rick Mahorn and some of the younger Pacers deserve some praise for keeping their heads and getting Jackson, Artest and Oneal out of the crowd.

[TenderBranson]

I think they made the decision based solely on this incident. And I still think they got it wrong.

I Just finished watching the press conference on ESPN with Stern, and someone from the New York Times asked Stern if Artest's year-long suspension had anything to do with his prior suspensions/ court conduct.

To this Stern responded that he did, in fact, take into consideration that Artest does have a past history of acting out.


And to throw my .02 in, I am also very suprised Tinsley didn't even get one game.

[CJ*]

I think that's pretty shitty of Stern, to suspened someone based on their reputation AND their actions rather than simply suspending Artest on his actions.



Think about what you just posted. If Artest acted out in the past, then he's not being suspended for reputation at all. Its the same as having two prior DWI offenses and then getting the book thrown at you the third time. Are the prior DWI offenses part of the offender's "reputation"? Of course not--they're prior acts that will be factored into the third DWI. Obviously, the offender isnt learning his lesson.

[IndyDave]

This isn't the first time someone has chucked something at Artest. He had a quarter thrown at his head and he gave the crowd the finger. He got a $20,000 fine, which he deserved, but I doubt they reviewed tape for 2 days to try and determine who threw it. Even if they did, no measures were taken to prevent this from happening in the future.

From Artests' shoes, "last time this happened, the fan got in no trouble and I did, who is protecting me other than myself". I agree that he deserved a substantial suspension, don't get me wrong, but I have to wonder why nobody mentioned that he has been hit with debris before, as well.

Most of the news reports don't comment on how much Artest has improved his self control over the past 2 years. Two season ago, he was getting kicked out left and right for flagrant fouls. Last year he behaved much better and, on Friday, he didn't flip out on Wallace when Wallace acted the fool. All you are hearing about, on a national level, is Artest has a history of being a nutjob. No mention that the incidents (the camera, fights, etc) of the past were (mostly) two season ago or before.

note: I am (admittedly) biased, as Artest is my favorite player on my team. Then again, my all-time favorite players were Rodman and Barkley. Go figure.

[13Apollo]

If anyone gets the "death penalty", Jackson should be out for the season if you ask me. Not only did he play a major role in the initial fight after the Wallace shove, but he made a beeline up to the stands and basically started flailing wildly at whoever he could find while Artest went for that one guy. If Jackson doesn't fly up there hitting people, the fans pull Artest off, the cool headed players make their way up to pull him out, and it's done.

[D-Rock]

drivelYour equivocations of Artest make you sound like a rube. Why should the news reports focus on the improvements Ron has made? He was suspended by his own coach for conduct detrimental to the team. When is the last time a coach has done that to a player of that prominence? Ever? He is also on record as saying he has been prescribed drugs for his mental state and refuses to take them.

Its not like Artest is being portrayed as a monster. The coverage has been all over the place but it might, on average, even skew positive for Artest. Tim Legler's take (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=1927415) on the incident, for instance, is nearly an apologist piece for Artest.

I got my ass kicked by $1.25, Smitten and Vinyard and all I got was this T-shirt I won't speak for the ladies but if you got your ass kicked by me you wouldn't be able to use a keyboard. Or eat solid food.

[13Apollo]

A lot of people in the media are actually taking up for Artest. So I don't but that he's being portrayed as a monster, either.

[IndyDave]

He is also on record as saying he has been prescribed drugs for his mental state and refuses to take them.

Wow, didn't even know that. Excellent point.

Many great players have been suspended for their behavior. Just because it didn't happen to Jordan, Magic or Bird doesn't mean that other great players haven't lost their cool, from time to time. Artest was suspended because he asked for time off. Strange? Very much so. Idiotic, you bet. Reason to say he isn't one of the best players in this league? Hardly. He's in the top 10 in scoring, defensive player of the year and an all star.


I won't speak for the ladies but if you got your ass kicked by me you wouldn't be able to use a keyboard. Or eat solid food.

It was a verbal ass whipping. As it is, I wasn't able to use my keyboard for a long time.

[DBlock]

Just a note, apparently the Ruben Studdard-esque fellow was Ben Wallace's brother, the one who drops Fred Jones. The Wallace boys just buried their mother and this was not a good week to fuck with them, as Fred Jones found out the hard way.

Between Harry Potter, the fat hispanic guy getting dropped not once but twice, and Jamaal Tinsley wielding a dustpan, this incident was off the charts funny.

I don't quite get the suspension for Wallace, and I thought Jackson should be suspended for at least as long as RonRon. 25 for Jermaine seemed appropriate, I would've had Artest and Jackson meet in the middle for about 50 games. I also would've given Pollard 10 games for wearing those ugly-ass sunglasses inside a brightly lit arena.

[jojo]

They are going to need to get this in front of an arbitrator soon. Wallace's suspension is so short that it's going to need to be heard this week. Also, keep in mind that Latrell Sprewell's original suspension was for one year, and was reduced by the arbitrator to the rest of that season, or 68 games.

[AHM]

How hard do you think the players union is going to fight these suspensions?

I can forsee the union maybe hanging someone out to dry to make an example of them - all of the negative PR that the NBA's been getting as a result of this situation would almost seem to demand a scapegoat. Thoughts?

[Chandler]

Artest was suspended because he asked for time off. Strange? Very much so. Idiotic, you bet. Reason to say he isn't one of the best players in this league? Hardly.

I'm assuming you are either purposefully leaving out all of his other suspensions for behaving like a two-bit thug; you are ignorant of these events, in which case you need to really read up on your so-called "favorite player"; or you just forgot about these events, in which case perhaps you should think before you post.

Either way, this was just plain stupidity.

[jojo]

How hard do you think the players union is going to fight these suspensions?

I can forsee the union maybe hanging someone out to dry to make an example of them - all of the negative PR that the NBA's been getting as a result of this situation would almost seem to demand a scapegoat. Thoughts?
And what exactly does that get the union?

[AHM]

And what exactly does that get the union?

Good point. A local news anchorman mentioned that this might happen, in order to send a message both to players and to fans that charging into the stands would not be tolerated. I thought it was an interesting point. I take it you don't buy it.

[Shock]

Good point. A local news anchorman mentioned that this might happen, in order to send a message both to players and to fans that charging into the stands would not be tolerated. I thought it was an interesting point. I take it you don't buy it.

All the Players Association letting one of its players take it sitting down would do is set a precident that they'll occasionally leave one of its members hanging out to dry. It really doesn't benefit them. I believe that was the point.

I mean, the sole purpose of the NBPA is to look out for its members' best interests.

[Heims]

I can't believe Ben Wallace only got 6 games. His little hissy fit after getting fouled (a hard foul, not a flagrant one) started this whole mess.

I also can't believe the Pacers are getting hit so hard and the Pistons get off so light.

Artest snapped (who wouldn't have?), and I agree he deserves a suspension. But not one that big. I could see 25 games for him.

Stephen Jackson hits a guy who's fucking with Ron, trying to help his teammate. If I was on the short end of a two on one fight, I hope my buddies help me out. Especially when I'm surrounded by potential hostiles. I think his time off should have been under 10.

JO did what? Other than lay a sweet punch on a fan who was already on the court? I'd say it's fair obvious the fans on the court were looking for trouble (why else would they be there, lipping off Pacers?), and should be fair game. Maybe JO gets 1 game off. He punched a guy who came looking for trouble.

I didn't see any security or police until Artest was on his way back out of the stands. Maybe I missed them, maybe they were stunned, but why the fuck weren't they doing something? Like maybe watching to make sure fight stays on the court, and the fans stay off the court? At football games, all security does is watch the stands for any potential trouble makers, what were they doing here? Not stopping the fans from throwing shit at the Pacers, that's for sure (even when the Pacers were trying to leave the court. Does nobody think that maybe walking right through a bunch of fans might not be smart at this point?). And what about the suggestion by the Pistons Team President (I think) that Artest was in the wrong by laying on the table, NOT fighting Wallace? He should be fined for being so biased and stupid.

How do the fans get punished? The NBA punishes the players because they could. Now players REALLY have to think about going into the stands. But what deterrant is there for rowdy fans? Suspended players lose millions. Their teams lose games. What do the fans get? An assault charge? With what sentence? They are now heros to their friends, and girls (look at how we all treat Tucker for breaking laws, fighting hockey mascots, being a drunk asshole). The incentive to behave was sent to the wrong group.

For reference: I'm a Pistons fan over the Pacers, and I really don't like Artest or JO. I can't stand Jackson. Ben is my 2 favorite Wallace on the team, which makes him my 3 most liked Piston, and player in that game.

[Good Ole Flopp]

Sorry to be coming in late on this thread, but I have the ESPN Sportscenter post-game show report of the fight to contribute.

http://www.collegehumor.com/news/nba-riot.wmv

[mattyk]

Supposedly Jermaine O'Neal may have an assault charge thrown on his ass because he supposedly nailed someone on the way to the locker room. . .off camera. A cop witnessed it, so this was one of the only off-camera altercations that we know about.

I can't believe someone just took up for Jackson. Of all the Pacers who were majorly involved, I thought this guy should've gotten the worst punishment. Much of the chaos would've been much less dramatic had he not been around. While Wallace had obviously snapped after Artest's foul, Jackson was going nuts as well. Artest was wrong for going in the crowd, and we all know that; but Jackson followed him and pretty much just started wailing on the first guy that looked at him. Atleast Artest had a half-assed reason for attacking a particular person, even though he picked Harry Potter instead of the guy that actually threw the beer.

Tinsley really missed the boat, though. Had he done something with that dustpan, this fight would've been legendary. . . Right up there with my high school basketball coach snapping a broom on the referee's back during a state playoff game.

I'm still shocked that Reggie Miller actually hit someone.

[jojo]

http://www.nbpa.com/cba/articleXXXI.html

[bdubs41]

If anyone gets the "death penalty", Jackson should be out for the season if you ask me. Not only did he play a major role in the initial fight after the Wallace shove, but he made a beeline up to the stands and basically started flailing wildly at whoever he could find while Artest went for that one guy. If Jackson doesn't fly up there hitting people, the fans pull Artest off, the cool headed players make their way up to pull him out, and it's done.

Doesn't the fact that Artest incited a mass riot mean he should be penalized the most? If he wouldn't of brought the fight to a new venue, i.e. the stands, the majority of the problems would of resulted on the court, and a lot of this mess wouldn't of happened. I think that you must realize that even though Jackson was more violent when he was in the stands, he was only provoked to go up there by Artest, whether protecting him or not. Artest could of simply pointed out to security who he thought threw the cup, and sued his ass. Instead, he created mass hysteria. That is why he is being given the most time off.

[Ski]

Kmatt,
Isn't it odd that the only similar incident I can think of in professional sports is when the Bruins went into the stands in 1979 but I bet everyone here can think of at least 2 or 3 high school sports incidents that were very similar?

[Proctor]

One thing I heard on the radio this morning I found ironic was in regard to the crying children in the stands. Per one account, they weren't crying because they were scared or upset simply based on seeing the fight. No, they were crying because they were left alone when their chaperones went down into the first few rows to get in on the action.

Nice job, Detroit. I like what the poster said about taking away their home games, in theory. What might be a feasible penalty would be to keep the first two or three rows empty, and/or put up a net around the Palace court. These suggestions, in effect, force Piston fans to wear a constructive and collective dunce cap.

I have no problem with the player suspensions, as none of their actions could be classified as self-defense, and the heavy punishments create the proper incentives to eliminate such behavior going forward.

[bqk]

Artest could of simply pointed out to security who he thought threw the cup, and sued his ass.

HAHAHAHAHA. Sued his ass for what? Emotional distress?

I like how Greg Anthony and Stephen A. Smith stuck to their guns. Following the incident on Fri night, both took strong stands saying, in effect, that Artest was justified in entering the stands under the circumstances and repeatedly informing the audience about how much abuse (verbal and otherwise) players take. I think Smith said that Artest was simply defending himself (the rest of the Showtime crew had similar stances).

Then, this morning, I saw an interview with Smith and Anthony where both said the suspensions were fitting. Smith described feeling during the incident as "disgusted". Anthony was "shocked". These guys totally reversed course in 72 hours (Smith more sharply than Anthony) when the only thing that changed was Stern's overdramatization of the incident and heavy-handed punishment. Nice journalistic integrity fellas. Terrible.

[Attitude]

HAHAHAHAHA. Sued his ass for what? Emotional distress?

I like how Greg Anthony and Stephen A. Smith stuck to their guns. Following the incident on Fri night, both took strong stands saying, in effect, that Artest was justified in entering the stands under the circumstances and repeatedly informing the audience about how much abuse (verbal and otherwise) players take. I think Smith said that Artest was simply defending himself (the rest of the Showtime crew had similar stances).

Then, this morning, I saw an interview with Smith and Anthony where both said the suspensions were fitting. Smith described feeling during the incident as "disgusted". Anthony was "shocked". These guys totally reversed course in 72 hours (Smith more sharply than Anthony) when the only thing that changed was Stern's overdramatization of the incident and heavy-handed punishment. Nice journalistic integrity fellas. Terrible.


I know your point was actually about their change in stance but were they really saying Artest was justified in beating up a guy because someone else through a beer at him (I didn't see it)? The guy who got the initial Artest beat down was still holding his beer so he couldn't have thrown it. That's not self defense it is battery and Artest should be prosecuted much like I probably would be if I beat the crap out of the guy sitting behind me at a basketball game.

Smith just sucks. I think its hysterical watching him abuse kids and tell them they are doing a horrible job on dream job when he totally sucks as a reporter.

[bdubs41]

HAHAHAHAHA. Sued his ass for what? Emotional distress?




No, but anyone who throws anything onto the court will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You obviously missed my entire point. You can call what he did self-defense, but there were other ways of dealing with it, that is why he is getting the brunt of the punishment.

[FatTony]

The guy who got the initial Artest beat down was still holding his beer so he couldn't have thrown it.

They let you double fist in most NBA arenas, so Harry Potter could have just thrown the lesser of his beers.

[wfujim]

They let you double fist in most NBA arenas, so Harry Potter could have just thrown the lesser of his beers.

If you watch the tape on that link above, you'll see it wasn't a beer but what appeared to be some of that Propel fitness water.

Personally, I think the punishment fit the crime. Provoked or not, what Artest and Co. did was not acceptable. I also think Detroit should be forced to play a certain amount of games with no fans at all, especially the next time the Pacers come to town.

[BigRed]

Had Artest not gone into the stands, Wallace would probably be the only person suspended for the on-court fight. There's a good chance someone saw who threw that beverage at Artest and that fan would have been kicked out of the arena. Fans cussing at and throwing things at players isn't anything new. It happens all the time. That's something that needs to be addressed by the security staff at the venues. Artest snapped, went way over the line, as did O'neal and Jackson. They're being punished accordingly.

[bct34]

Criminal Charges??? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/basketball/nba/11/22/charges.ap/index.html?cnn=yes)

Looks like they are now discussing criminal charges for both the players and the fan who threw the beer(the actual guy, not Harry Potter), who apparently they have identified.

[jojo]

Out of curiosity, for those who believe the punishment fit the crime, how do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that these penalties are above and beyond similar behavior in the past, such as Vernon Maxwell's 10 game suspension for going into the stands to fit a fan?

[wfujim]

Out of curiosity, for those who believe the punishment fit the crime, how do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that these penalties are above and beyond similar behavior in the past, such as Vernon Maxwell's 10 game suspension for going into the stands to fit a fan?

For one, I think this melee was much more severe than the Maxwell incident.

Also, what about Sprewell getting a year off for strangling PJ? I know the events are not all that similar, but I'd still say attacking your paying customers (aka the people who pay hundreds of dollars to sit courtside and line your pockets) whether provoked or not is just as bad - and much worse for the league.

[jojo]

For one, I think this melee was much more severe than the Maxwell incident.

Also, what about Sprewell getting a year off for strangling PJ? I know the events are not all that similar, but I'd still say attacking your paying customers (aka the people who pay hundreds of dollars to sit courtside and line your pockets) whether provoked or not is just as severe.
Sprewell got 68 games, not a year. And who exactly are you comparing him to? Just Artest, or Jackson and O'Neal as well?

[bdubs41]

Out of curiosity, for those who believe the punishment fit the crime, how do you reconcile.....

When Maxwell went after the fan, he did so for a reason(whether right or wrong). Artest went after a fan that didn't even throw the beer, he just had a blind rage moment, and started swinging at anyone. I don't think he was thinking "Harry Potter looking fool just threatened my life, I need to make sure he doesn't do it again".

I think he thought: I am pissed, the crowd is happy I got hit, that guy is being obnoxious, he I go."

[wfujim]

Sprewell got 68 games, not a year. And who exactly are you comparing him to? Just Artest, or Jackson and O'Neal as well?

Well, Artest's suspension was for 73, so thats only a marginal difference between him and Spre.

I was mainly comparing Spre to Artest, just due to the similarity in suspension length.

[Brown Man]

Remember people, this is only round one. This will go in front of an arbitrator for the union's grievance next.

I'm really shocked that the union provided Stern with this much authority. The union may appeal the suspension, but the appeal doesn't go to an independent arbitrator. Stern reviews the appeal and may reduce the fine/suspension at his leisure. Clearly these suspensions/fines do not square with prior precedent, but I really don't see Stern lowering the sentence for Artest or Jackson. Ultimately, I think JO probably has the best chance, but again, Stern appears to be sending a strong message here.

[jojo]

When Maxwell went after the fan, he did so for a reason(whether right or wrong). Artest went after a fan that didn't even throw the beer, he just had a blind rage moment, and started swinging at anyone. I don't think he was thinking "Harry Potter looking fool just threatened my life, I need to make sure he doesn't do it again".

I think he thought: I am pissed, the crowd is happy I got hit, that guy is being obnoxious, he I go."
Artest is on record as saying that there was a racial epithet made in his direction at that time.

[jojo]

I'm really shocked that the union provided Stern with this much authority. The union may appeal the suspension, but the appeal doesn't go to an independent arbitrator. Stern reviews the appeal and may reduce the fine/suspension at his leisure. Clearly these suspensions/fines do not square with prior precedent, but I really don't see Stern lowering the sentence for Artest or Jackson. Ultimately, I think JO probably has the best chance, but again, Stern appears to be sending a strong message here.
Possibly. The distinction is on-court and off-court incidents. Stern has stated that his reasoning for the lengthy suspension is because the boundary between the court and the stands was crossed. Does that make this an off-court incident for Artest and Jackson?

[bdubs41]

Artest is on record as saying that there was a racial epithet made in his direction at that time.

Although that is unfortunate, I don't think that is going to help his case of beating some dude up.

[jojo]

For one, I think this melee was much more severe than the Maxwell incident.

Also, what about Sprewell getting a year off for strangling PJ? I know the events are not all that similar, but I'd still say attacking your paying customers (aka the people who pay hundreds of dollars to sit courtside and line your pockets) whether provoked or not is just as bad - and much worse for the league.
Just as bad, but you're ok with Maxwell getting 10 games and Artest 73 for the same principle?

[jojo]

Although that is unfortunate, I don't think that is going to help his case of beating some dude up.
How many punches did he throw before being punched? Zero. What did the first guy say Artest did? Held him down and asked if he was the one who threw the drink.

[Attitude]

Artest is on record as saying that there was a racial epithet made in his direction at that time.

So what? You know you can't legally beat someone up for using a racial epithet. Also, did he say Harry Potter said it? Not that it matters.

[Brown Man]

I guess the union could argue this doesn't fall under Section 8, but I'd guess prior precedent/course of action (Rodman, Maxwell, etc.) would suggest this likely constitutes "conduct on the playing court."

[bdubs41]

How many punches did he throw before being punched? Zero. What did the first guy say Artest did? Held him down and asked if he was the one who threw the drink.

It still shows no restraint by him running after the guy. The other punches were justified in my opinion. The jag who ran on the court, fine, but running after the guy in the stands and causing people to go flying is what he is being penalized for. I realize it was reported that he was held down, but it looked like he did more than just "hold" him down. He slapped the guy and slammed him to the ground. I think Harry Potter didn't want to look like a pussy on TV.

[jojo]

I guess the union could argue this doesn't fall under Section 8, but I'd guess prior precedent/course of action (Rodman, Maxwell, etc.) would suggest this likely constitutes "conduct on the playing court."
That's going to be their argument. How successful it is remains to be seen.

[jojo]

So what? You know you can't legally beat someone up for using a racial epithet. Also, did he say Harry Potter said it? Not that it matters.
Are you reading the thread? The so what is because there was an attempt made to distinguish this from a previous incident which resulted in a much shorter suspension.

[bdubs41]

Are you reading the thread? The so what is because there was an attempt made to distinguish this from a previous incident which resulted in a much shorter suspension.

I can't seem to find the circumstances of the Maxwell incidence, but from what I gather, it was specific heckler that had been saying stuff directly to him, and maxwell went into the stands after a certain person he knew said some nasty stuff. About what, I don't think we'll ever know.

[BigRed]

Just as bad, but you're ok with Maxwell getting 10 games and Artest 73 for the same principle?

Nope. Maxwell should have been suspended much longer. But this brawl was way beyond what happened in the Maxwell case. The league has to step in here and set a precedent that will help ensure something like this never happens again. The bottom line is Artest made a terrible mistake by going into the crowd. That can't happen. The league is going to make an example of these guys in the hope that it can deter this sort of thing from ever taking place again.

I'd also like to say that I am not absolving the fans' role in an incident like this. I hope the police are able to find out which fans were active participants and prosecute them. I also heard that the Pistons president said they are looking into revoking the tickets of any season ticket holder that was found to have been a part of the fight.

Of course most of the fans that had a role in this will probably get away scot free and the player's are being punished harshly. I'd agree it's not totally fair. But David Stern had to take a stand here.

[jojo]

It still shows no restraint by him running after the guy. The other punches were justified in my opinion. The jag who ran on the court, fine, but running after the guy in the stands and causing people to go flying is what he is being penalized for. I realize it was reported that he was held down, but it looked like he did more than just "hold" him down. He slapped the guy and slammed him to the ground. I think Harry Potter didn't want to look like a pussy on TV.
Again, the point is that others have shown just as little restraint in other situations. Nobody is saying that he's right here. But let's say that the next fight in the NBA is Grant Hill, only he doesn't get suspended while the guy he fights does. How far are you willing to let past behavior govern what is decided today, and how much (or little) should precedential value of similar circumstances come in?

[Attitude]

Are you reading the thread? The so what is because there was an attempt made to distinguish this from a previous incident which resulted in a much shorter suspension.

Did the Maxwell incident result in the cancellation of a game and a melee erupting where multiple players wound up in the stands fighting fans, fans wound up on the court fighting the players, a chair was thrown, players had to be escorted off by police and team officials and it dominated the news media for days?

Or did you miss that distinction?

[D-Rock]

Out of curiosity, for those who believe the punishment fit the crime, how do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that these penalties are above and beyond similar behavior in the past, such as Vernon Maxwell's 10 game suspension for going into the stands to fit a fan?

According to Maxwell and other spectators the fan in question had been abusing him all night and escalated it to the point of dropping a series of racial epithets and making light of his recently still-born daughter. I think its tough for anybody to argue that he wasn't significantly more provoked than Artest and infintely moreso than O'Neal or Jackson. Additionally, there is no way Artest knew who threw the cup and there is solid anecdotal evidence that he deliberately passed several more likely (they were closer) people to attack Harry Potter who, coincidentally or not, was the smallest possible combatant. In general I find David Stern to be loathesome (Connie Hawkins?) but in this instance I think he was surprisingly correct.

Again, I think that Artest and Jackson should have the suspensions flipped; Jackson's actions are inexcusable. I think of the four suspensions of any length Artest's is the most likely to be reduced. Stern saying he factored past behavior into consideration when punishing Artest will hurt him in front of any arbitrator.

[Sharts]

The exposure of this incident and the subsequent suspension of Artest is harsher when it comes to the Spreewell case for several reasons.

1) Artest's past behavior. Whether it is right or wrong. Yes, Artest didn't actually throw a punch until he was punched. But clearly Stern is out to make Artest his whipping boy for going into the stands. The NBA's image has sort of been on the upswing recently for the first time since 1998 and this is a huge blow to the league.

2) There was no video evidence of Spree choking P.J. The brawl in Detroit is a huge public relations disaster for the league for several reasons with one being the fact that it was televised and hence shown on replays literally thousands of times already.

Some other random thoughts ...

The Wallace punishment is way too harsh. He got six games for pushing Artest on the chin after he was on a semi-cheap shot foul. That's a three-game suspension at the most. And I don't care that he threw a towel or an arm band at Artest. Wallace didn't throw a punch.

I still don't comprehend how Tinsley was not suspended for at least a few games.

My initial reaction was that Artest would get 35 game suspension or not allowed back until after the All-Star break, Jackson would have gotten 20, O'Neal would have gotten 15 with Wallace, Johnson and Tinsely getting three games. I still maintain all of these suspensions are the correct ones and not the ones levied by the league.

[Brown Man]

It still shows no restraint by him running after the guy. The other punches were justified in my opinion. The jag who ran on the court, fine, but running after the guy in the stands and causing people to go flying is what he is being penalized for. I realize he just held the guy down, but it looked like he did more than just "hold" him down. He slapped the guy and slammed him to the ground.

Forget about the entertainment value because that was tremendous. But I'm glad Artest, Jackson and JO went loco. Fans need to understand that some actions are off-limits. Heckling is part of sports, but taking physical action (e.g., throwing shit on the court or at players) is not tolerable. At the end of the day, these are men. If someone throws a beer at you, you're going to respond. To think these people should have more restraint, just because they're professional athletes is ridiculous. Did Artest/Jackson/JO snap? Absolutely. However, I couldn't imagine any man that wouldn't snap when shit was being thrown at him or when dumbass fans come to the court to scrap.

[jojo]

Did the Maxwell incident result in the cancellation of a game and a melee erupting where multiple players wound up in the stands fighting fans, fans wound up on the court fighting the players, a chair was thrown, players had to be escorted off by police and team officials and it dominated the news media for days?

Or did you miss that distinction?
Did Maxwell go into the stands and punch someone? Yes or no? If Artest went into the stands and nobody followed, would any of that have happened? So now he's to blame for the actions of everyone else as well? He threw the chair, made Jackson, O'Neal and Johnson punch people, and brought down the twin towers all in one foul.

How about Barkley spitting on a little girl? That's ok, because nobody else jumped in? Or Artest would have been fine if he had waited until after the game, like the Blazers did a couple of years ago? Distinctions have a funny way of becoming important to justify something that has nothing to do with supposed principles.

And news domination determines what? If that's the case, shouldn't Kobe Bryant still be suspended?

[bdubs41]

Again, the point is that others have shown just as little restraint in other situations. Nobody is saying that he's right here. But let's say that the next fight in the NBA is Grant Hill, only he doesn't get suspended while the guy he fights does. How far are you willing to let past behavior govern what is decided today, and how much (or little) should precedential value of similar circumstances come in?

Considering each one of these incidences are so rare, I would go on a individual basis. Thats not the easy way out of answering your question, but when Stern made the judgement on Maxwell, All circumstances of the incident were considered. The concideration should be based on all the different aspects we have been talking about in this thread. Setting a precedent is good, but since hopefully this is one not likely to happen all that often, it is important to lay down the law.

[jojo]

Considering each one of these incidences are so rare, I would go on a individual basis. Thats not the easy way out of answering your question, but when Stern made the judgement on Maxwell, All circumstances of the incident were considered. The concideration should be based on all the different aspects we have been talking about in this thread. Setting a precedent is good, but since hopefully this is one not likely to happen all that often, it is important to lay down the law.
It certainly is the easy way out. You cannot govern a league like this without some uniformity in the punishments levied.

[Sharts]

Also, if you guys think Ron Ron is nuts now, just wait. The guy, despite him allegedly wanting time off to promote the Allure disc, is likely the biggest gym rat in the league.

I sat in on a phone conversation with his former agent and him a little over two years ago during the offseason. The agent had to convince Ron to NOT go and practice after having hand surgery two weeks beforehand. The only time Ron feels normal is when he is playing in games or practicing. Basketball is his main outlet and if he can't play and be in that competition he will go nuts.

He is also in a very bad shape financially despite signing that extension two summers ago. That five million dollar hit is going to hurt him badly.

[DietCokehead]

Some of my thoughts (apologies if they've been covered -- I only skimmed the beginning of the thread):

The suspensions, in my opinion, were too light, if anything. The difference between the Pacers players involved and the Detroit players is that the Pacers went after fans. Given free reign, I would have given Jackson and possibly Artest the death sentence. O'Neal would have been gone for at least the season. I also would have upped the Detroit suspensions a few games, but their offenses were not all that spectacular in comparison. Wallace shoved Artest after being hacked all game, when Artest fouled him hard with less than a minute left and the Pacers way up. He was out-of-line, but that is the sort of lashing-out that occurs in the game, and he was adequately punished.

As for past offenses (Maxwell, Sprewell, whoever), they, too, should have been shown the door. Professional athletes, and I feel that the players in the NBA are particularly bad in this area, seem to have forgotten that it's the fans that keep them employed and well-payed. Regardless of what's said, they are to keep their emotions on the playing floor. You don't see pitcher throwing fastballs into the stands when they're heckled. Wide-outs don't drag fans from the stand to beat them after being taunted for a dropped pass. NBA players have to keep their emotions controlled. Those taunts are part of their job. Just as much, if not more, comes on the floor, anyway.

Every fan that can be shown to be involved should lose his or her season tickets, forever. Criminal charges are likely for at least those throwing the chair, the first beer, and a few other instances. Every fan who chucked a cup probably will not be identified, but a concerted effort needs to be made to punish those possible.

Artest going into the crowd, in my mind, is no different than a lawyer punching a client or a doctor punching a patient in for a check-up. He has the option of not playing in the NBA at any time he chooses to stop, but he does not have the right to lash out at a fan, ever, unless he is in immediate danger of being seriously and permanently injured, with no other option other than physically defending himself, which was clearly not the case in this instance. If he is unhappy with the environment, he can find employment elsewhere.

That said, Jackson should have received at least the punishment that Artest did, as he not only was not initially involved, but he also threw the first punch once he did climb into the crowd. O'Neal should get a year off for his punch/slide-tackle. All of their behavior was not only unacceptable and embarassing, but it was, in my mind, apt reason for dismissal.

[jojo]

You don't see pitcher throwing fastballs into the stands when they're heckled. Wide-outs don't drag fans from the stand to beat them after being taunted for a dropped pass. NBA players have to keep their emotions controlled. Those taunts are part of their job. Just as much, if not more, comes on the floor, anyway.

Except for the fight at Wrigley in 2000 for the stolen hat, and the fight in the bullpen during a Red Sox-Yankees game. And the fact that it's much harder to get into the stands in those other sports.

[Brown Man]

Except for the fight at Wrigley in 2000 for the stolen hat, and the fight in the bullpen during a Red Sox-Yankees game. And the fact that it's much harder to get into the stands in those other sports.

Also, this wasn't mere heckling. I don't think anyone disagrees that heckling only is insufficient grounds to go into to the stands. At what point, though, do the fans cross the line in such a way that they deserve a beat down. Personally, I think some Pistons fans crossed that line. Poor Freddie Jones was trying to pull his teammates out of stands, then the 350 pound offensive linemen connects on two rabid punches to the back of the head. Two mexicans come onto the court. One of which comes at Artest in a fighting posture. I was glad Artest gave him a straight right on the jaw. Didn't care that JO started swinging from 25ft away when he connected on the punch to the other mexicans chin.

[D-Rock]

Also, if you guys think Ron Ron is nuts now, just wait. The guy, despite him allegedly wanting time off to promote the Allure disc, is likely the biggest gym rat in the league.

He's a hard worker, no doubt. That being said I think this guy (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/bobby_simmons/index.html) has him in the hard work department. Paging John Paxson, Paging John Paxson.

He is also in a very bad shape financially despite signing that extension two summers ago. That five million dollar hit is going to hurt him badly.

Again, I feel pretty badly for him here.

[bdubs41]

Every fan that can be shown to be involved should lose his or her season tickets, forever. Criminal charges are likely for at least those throwing the chair, the first beer, and a few other instances. Every fan who chucked a cup probably will not be identified, but a concerted effort needs to be made to punish those possible.



Perhaps the Auburn Hills police should do what UConn after their fan riots. Put up picutres of the riot, and have an anonymous tip line of who people are. Don't know how they would do it logistically, I just don't like the idea of those idiot fans who saw an opportunity to dump something, just cause they could.

[jojo]

Also, if Bird hadn't fired Zeke, there would be funeral services for some fan today.

[DietCokehead]

Also, this wasn't mere heckling. I don't think anyone disagrees that heckling only is insufficient grounds to go into to the stands. At what point, though, do the fans cross the line in such a way that they deserve a beat down. Personally, I think some Pistons fans crossed that line. Poor Freddie Jones was trying to pull his teammates out of stands, then the 350 pound offensive linemen connects on two rabid punches to the back of the head. Two mexicans come onto the court. One of which comes at Artest in a fighting posture. I was glad Artest gave him a straight right on the jaw. Didn't care that JO started swinging from 25ft away when he connected on the punch to the other mexicans chin.

It wasn't just heckling, but there was no real danger. Artest could have even walked off, and I don't think that he would have been faulted at all. I was hit with a beer, somewhat made a fool of, but there was not justification to head into the stands, most definitely not to attack someone who slung a racial slur.

There is no excuse for Jackson or O'Neal. Artest was wrong, but initially less wrong. However, as he started the ordeal, from the players' side, I would give him the death penalty. Jackson would get the same for entering the stands and throwing the first punch. O'Neal would get a year for throwing his punch, though he didn't enter the stands. I do feel bad for Jones, 'Sheed, and anyone else trying to help stop the ordeal.

That said, I wish that MLB should have laid down tougher penalties in the Dodgers/Cubs incident, and I think they are with the Rangers. That did start the 7th inning rule on beer sales, and while it's not favorable for me or other responsible fans, it might be necessary to institute such measures in all arenas.

The fact that the stands at NBA games are easier to enter should not be an argument. That's like saying that it's less wrong for me to steal something from an unlocked car than from a locked one. The end action is equally wrong.

I stand by my opinion that the Pacers' players got off easy, in my mind, as they get to come back after their suspensions to make their millions. I hope that this is a message sent to the rest of the league. Also, I fully support criminal proceedings for any fan proven to have been involved, at least for the major offenders I mentioned previously.

In terms of their loss of salary, I do not feel bad for them. I'd be hard up, too, if I was suddenly without mine, which is most definitely what would happen if I acted in the same manner in my workplace.

[Attitude]

Did Maxwell go into the stands and punch someone? Yes or no? If Artest went into the stands and nobody followed, would any of that have happened? So now he's to blame for the actions of everyone else as well? He threw the chair, made Jackson, O'Neal and Johnson punch people, and brought down the twin towers all in one foul.

How about Barkley spitting on a little girl? That's ok, because nobody else jumped in? Or Artest would have been fine if he had waited until after the game, like the Blazers did a couple of years ago? Distinctions have a funny way of becoming important to justify something that has nothing to do with supposed principles.

And news domination determines what? If that's the case, shouldn't Kobe Bryant still be suspended?

Unfortunately, Artest started a riot. Whether or not he intended to start a riot is pretty much irrelevant. He is going to be held accountable for everything that followed. He should have known that this was the likely outcome of him going into the stands to fight with the opposing teams fans. He is also extremely lucky he wasn't killed or seriously injured. I'm amazed no one was seriously injured.

I would have given Maxwell the same suspension as Artest. No one said it was ok for Barkley to spit on the little girl. He should have been suspended also. If the Blazers decided to fight some fans after the game they should be fired and banned from the league.

The principle should be that if you attack a fan in any case other than legal self-defense you should be banned from playing. I am not sure if I would get disbarred for beating up a client but I can assure you I would be fired and would subsequently have trouble finding work.

[jojo]

The fact that the stands at NBA games are easier to enter should not be an argument. That's like saying that it's less wrong for me to steal something from an unlocked car than from a locked one. The end action is equally wrong.
Nobody is arguing that the end action wouldn't be wrong. But what you're saying is that people in other sports have more perspective, when realistically they just have more impediments to their entry into the stands.

[Sharts]

A little background on why Artest has been more out of control this off-season and this season.

Artest fired his previous agent Mark Bartelstein in the off-season. This basically happened because Bartelstein refused to back Artest in opening his record label and starting up a clothing line.

Bartelstein by all accounts - from around the league from players to coaches to GMs who haggle with him on contracts for players - is one of the best agents in all of sports in terms of not taking on clients that are problems and keep them from getting into trouble and being a truly guiding force in their lives. If you've seen Bartelstein's client list it reads like a who's who of squeaky clean NBA and NFL players. Bartelstein had repeatedly turned down NBA and NFL clients in the past due to sketchy backgrounds.

Bartelstein took Ron into his fold a few years ago for several reasons.

1) He felt Ron's agent he hired after before his rookie year (his name escapes me now) totally fucked the kid over. This agent allegedly let all of Ron's family and hangers on basically bleed him dry and did nothing to stop it. He also at one point didn't even have Ron on a budget. I mean what the fuck are you his agent for?

2) Bartelstein also connected with Ron and felt/feels Ron is a good person who was misunderstood a lot. Ron has been on record publically and has also said in private that Bartelstein was a big-time father figure to him. This is why you really didn't see Ron blowing up and doing outlandish shit the previous two seasons. Bartelstein really kept Ron in check and this was a big reason why the Pacers opened up their checkbook for Ron when it was time for his extension.

3) Bartelstein was very good at trying to keep those bad influences away from Ron for the most part for the past two years. But some of these guys got back into Ron's inner circle and this started fueled or started the idea for the label and the clothing line and also contributed to Ron coming into camp at 260 pounds.

[DietCokehead]

Nobody is arguing that the end action wouldn't be wrong. But what you're saying is that people in other sports have more perspective, when realistically they just have more impediments to their entry into the stands.
My opinion is that, while this is true, should they ever enter the stands, they should be punished in similar fashion.

Attacking a fan is an inexcusable mistake, especially if the player is the party pursuing the confrontation. Once the player has entered the stands and physically assaulted a fan, my opinion is that he should be gone forever. In this case, I'm sure the new ABA would love to have Artest.

[D-Rock]

At what point, though, do the fans cross the line in such a way that they deserve a beat down. .

I fail to understand why there is an either/or proposition with blame here. The person who threw the propel fitness bottle/beer at Artest while he was lying on the scorer's table (a stunt that by itself warrants a 3 game suspension) should have their season ticket's removed and face a misdemeanor charge (disorderly conduct?) for his actions. I think at best its high-minded sophistry to pretend that that action amounted to a legitimate provocation for Artest's actions. More importantly, there was no way for Artest to know who did it and there were tens of better ways to find out who was responsible.

Personally, I think some Pistons fans crossed that line. Poor Freddie Jones was trying to pull his teammates out of stands, then the 350 pound offensive linemen connects on two rabid punches to the back of the head.

What Ruben Stoddard did there was clearly wrong. He is on tape and will undoubtedly be prosecuted. Interestingly, his situation is nearly identical to Jackson's: He threw too punches without threat of bodily harm at somebody who couldn't possibly defend himself. There is no almost no precedent for prosecuting athletes in these instances (and, yes that's probably a good thing) so its left to the commissioner to do so.

[D-Rock]

Just an FYI:

ESPN is running a relatively interesting bit with Roger Cossack (their legal consultant) about how the prosecutor should proceed. Its on now, which means it will come on again in about a half hour.

[jojo]

The principle should be that if you attack a fan in any case other than legal self-defense you should be banned from playing. I am not sure if I would get disbarred for beating up a client but I can assure you I would be fired and would subsequently have trouble finding work.
And how do you know that? Because it's a reasonable estimation of the consequences of your actions, based on similar consequences in similar situations.

But instead of granting Artest that same predictability of consequences, everyone now wants to change the rules. And nobody seems to have a problem with that.

[Sharts]

What Ruben Stoddard did there was clearly wrong.

Don't wanna do the Ruben Studdard and come off less threatenin, Keepin it real'll kill you if you end up lettin it, Ain't it blowin your mind how the game all in line, Now the best, to the rest, we fin' to end up settin it, I'd tell you that I was a veteran but it's evident, You act like you want it, you gon' end up gettin it

[DietCokehead]

And how do you know that? Because it's a reasonable estimation of the consequences of your actions, based on similar consequences in similar situations.

But instead of granting Artest that same predictability of consequences, everyone now wants to change the rules. And nobody seems to have a problem with that.
I think that Stern made the right move by not banning Artest forever, though I think the move would have been warranted, because of the lack of precendent.

Artest does not receive any predictability, as no prior incident exists to use as a basis for punishment. He has now served as that baseline, and he should be thankful that he still has the potential to have both a bright and gainful future ahead of him.

[Attitude]

And how do you know that? Because it's a reasonable estimation of the consequences of your actions, based on similar consequences in similar situations.

But instead of granting Artest that same predictability of consequences, everyone now wants to change the rules. And nobody seems to have a problem with that.

So you think Artest was thinking "I'm only going to face a 10 game suspension like Maxwell" and based on his expectation of a 10 game suspension went into the stands? But the way he grabbed Harry Potter was similar to the way Spree actually grabbed P.J. so maybe he had a reasonable expectation of 68 games, in which case the length of the suspension is fair.

I actually don't think Artest was thinking anything other than "I want to beat the crap out of whoever threw that at me".

I also don't think you have enough similar incidents to make a very good expectation/precedent argument here.

[Proctor]

Unfortunately, Artest started a riot. Whether or not he intended to start a riot is pretty much irrelevant. He is going to be held accountable for everything that followed.

You're claiming that intent is irrelevant when charging this crime or tort? I strongly suspect that isn't the case.

That being said, I don't see any problem with heavy suspensions and fines, regardless of how draconian they are. What's done is done, and the only thing that matters now is that the proper incentives are created so it doesn't happen again.

The only challenge would be something along the 14th, because the penalties are so much stiffer than those in the past. But, these are people working for a private employer.

[jojo]

Don't wanna do the Ruben Studdard and come off less threatenin
Keepin it real'll kill you if you end up lettin it
Ain't it blowin your mind how the game all in line
Now the best, to the rest, we fin' to end up settin it
I'd tell you that I was a veteran but it's evident
You act like you want it, you gon' end up gettin it
I was thinking more along these lines:


It's like I rushed the court,
It's like I threw the beer.
(Damn I'm Sorry)
It''s like my Pistons lost
So I couldn't cheer.
(Damn, I'm sorry)
It's like I love Fred Jones,
and we were in the clink.
(Damn, I'm sorry)
It's like tried to hit him
With the kitchen sink
(Oooh damn I'm sorry)

Butl I've apologized
a million times before.
(I'll apologize a million more) So here it comes again
for all the wrong I've done.
(so get ready)
Here's One million one.

[Chorus]
This is my sorry for, 2004.
And I aint gonna hit you no more, this year.
I'm 'a take this one chance,
and make it real clear.
I'm sorry for the hook
and I'm sorry for jab (for real)
and I'm sorry for the punch (i am)
Next time I'll just stab
Ronnie, Stephen, Jermaine: you're leavin'
I'm Sorry.
(I'm sorry 2004)

[jojo]

I think that Stern made the right move by not banning Artest forever, though I think the move would have been warranted, because of the lack of precendent.

Artest does not receive any predictability, as no prior incident exists to use as a basis for punishment. He has now served as that baseline, and he should be thankful that he still has the potential to have both a bright and gainful future ahead of him.
That's just not true. There is plent of precedent. It doesn't match up exactly, but all there have certainly been analogous situations in the past with much shorter suspensions.

While Artest's actions do not match Maxwell's they certainly are not 7 times worse.

[jojo]

So you think Artest was thinking "I'm only going to face a 10 game suspension like Maxwell" and based on his expectation of a 10 game suspension went into the stands? But the way he grabbed Harry Potter was similar to the way Spree actually grabbed P.J. so maybe he had a reasonable expectation of 68 games, in which case the length of the suspension is fair.

I actually don't think Artest was thinking anything other than "I want to beat the crap out of whoever threw that at me".

I also don't think you have enough similar incidents to make a very good expectation/precedent argument here.
Decide on an argument. Before, you were saying how he should be accountable for his actions because he should have known what they would lead to. Now, you're throwing that out of the way because it doesn't fit?

And you're so sure he wanted to beat the crap out of someone who admits that Artest didn't punch him. Come on, now.

[jojo]

So you think Artest was thinking "I'm only going to face a 10 game suspension like Maxwell" and based on his expectation of a 10 game suspension went into the stands? But the way he grabbed Harry Potter was similar to the way Spree actually grabbed P.J. so maybe he had a reasonable expectation of 68 games, in which case the length of the suspension is fair.

As for Spree and PJ, put the facts out there. Spree left practice, cooled down, came back and went after PJ. This was his second incident of this type, since he did the same thing when he came back for Jerome Kersey with a 2x4.

But we can overlook the fact that he left the practice facility on two separate incidents, only to return an hour or two later both times to fight, right?

[DietCokehead]

That's just not true. There is plent of precedent. It doesn't match up exactly, but all there have certainly been analogous situations in the past with much shorter suspensions.

While Artest's actions do not match Maxwell's they certainly are not 7 times worse.

I don't agree, especially because Artest did not even go after the person who incited him.

"Harry Potter" was not the one who even threw the beer, nor was the thrower involved in any of the major milestones of the brawl:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/sports/3938054/detail.html

Artest attacked an innocent fan. Even if the racial slur was shouted, that is no excuse for Artest's actions.

[Sharts]

Indy's Reuben Studdard's I'm Sorry.

For those that don't get this, it's the wittiest thing that's been posted here in a long ass time.


Focus:

The BEST part about the brawl is that these are lower bowl - nearly courtside fans - that were scrapping with players. You HAVE to love this just for the actual fight's sake. Sure, some of the Detroit fans might have come down from other levels somehow and gotten into the fray. But still, you gotta love Detroit fans. I would put Detroit basketball season ticket holders up against any other basketball season ticket holders in any other city when it comes to a brawl.

[Brown Man]

I fail to understand why there is an either/or proposition with blame here. The person who threw the propel fitness bottle/beer at Artest while he was lying on the scorer's table (a stunt that by itself warrants a 3 game suspension) should have their season ticket's removed and face a misdemeanor charge (disorderly conduct?) for his actions. I think at best its high-minded sophistry to pretend that that action amounted to a legitimate provocation for Artest's actions. More importantly, there was no way for Artest to know who did it and there were tens of better ways to find out who was responsible.


I don't mean to suggest this is an either/or proposition. To the contrary, I believe RonRon deserves a stiff punishment (20-25 games) for going into the stands. But there appears to be this sentiment that an athlete should never go into the stands--provided no "legal" self defense justification. Moreover, this sentiment results from the notion that these are "millionaires" and the fans pay their salaries. So, basically the fan can do whatever he wants to the professional athlete absent an actual physical threat. This is something that I reject. Obviously this isn't an excuse, but the majority of these "millionaires" were brought up under rough conditions. If someone threw an object at RonRon in the queensbridge projects, I guarantee he would respond. To think RonRon (just b/c he's a millionaire) has changed so much from the kid that grew up in the projects and his reactions towards antisocial conduct would be any different from yours/mine or anyone elses is what I reject.

Fans have been getting away with this sort of antisocial conduct for a while. There have been many incidence where fans throw shit on the floor after bad calls by refs. But generally these things go unpunished. Frankly, I'm glad RonRon went nuts because it brings these sorts of issues more to the forefront.

[jojo]

I don't agree, especially because Artest did not even go after the person who incited him.

"Harry Potter" was not the one who even threw the beer, nor was the thrower involved in any of the major milestones of the brawl:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/sports/3938054/detail.html

Artest attacked an innocent fan. Even if the racial slur was shouted, that is no excuse for Artest's actions.
Just like Barkley spitting on the little girl, instead of the heckler.

And since we're talking about precedent, what about Antoine Walker motioning to his friends in the crowd who he wanted taken care of when he was in Boston?

There are plenty of incidents in the league's history that are just as heinous.

[IndyDave]

No, but anyone who throws anything onto the court will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


Since when?

Artest got pegged in the dome, previously, with some change. It might have even been a Detroit game, I'm not sure. He gave the finger to the crowd and was fined $20,000 for doing so.

To my knowledge, the fan was never identified nor prosecuted. Fans throw ice all the time and are never prosecuted. They say, over the loudspeaker, that if you throw shit you'll go to jail, but I've sat in VIP 100x and have only seen this happen once.

I was listening to the radio, as this transpired. All I kept hearing is "where is security, where are the police".

Also, I am not certain that laying on the scorers table warrents a 3 game suspension.

[Brown Man]

For those that don't get this, it's the wittiest thing that's been posted here in a long ass time.


Focus:

The BEST part about the brawl is that these are lower bowl - nearly courtside fans - that were scrapping with players. You HAVE to love this just for the actual fight's sake. Sure, some of the Detroit fans might have come down from other levels somehow and gotten into the fray. But still, you gotta love Detroit fans. I would put Detroit basketball season ticket holders up against any other basketball season ticket holders in any other city when it comes to a brawl.

I agree with this statement 100%. The only group of fans close is Philly.

[DietCokehead]

Just like Barkley spitting on the little girl, instead of the heckler.

And since we're talking about precedent, what about Antoine Walker motioning to his friends in the crowd who he wanted taken care of when he was in Boston?

There are plenty of incidents in the league's history that are just as heinous.

But do they involve the player personally physically attacking fans?

Regardless of precedent, Artest was not overly punished. This incident marked a dark, dark day for the NBA.

[Attitude]

Decide on an argument. Before, you were saying how he should be accountable for his actions because he should have known what they would lead to. Now, you're throwing that out of the way because it doesn't fit?

And you're so sure he wanted to beat the crap out of someone who admits that Artest didn't punch him. Come on, now.

No dude, thats not what I'm saying, I was asking you what you meant - if you thought he was actually making a reasonable decision thinking he would only get 10 games since thats what Maxwell got. And I didn't say he wanted to beat the crap out of Harry Potter, I said he wanted to beat the crap out of "whoever threw that at me". Why else did he run into the stands? To complement them on their accuracy?

What I was getting at is that I doubt Artest was thinking rationally about the length of his potential suspension based on past precedent at the moment he went running into the stands and grabbed Harry Potter.

I am willing to overlook past precedent if it is bad precedent. Maxwell got 10 games. He should have gotten more. I already explained what I think should be the punishment for a player going into the stands so I won't bore anyone repeating it.

[jojo]

But do they involve the player personally physically attacking fans?

Regardless of precedent, Artest was not overly punished. This incident marked a dark, dark day for the NBA.
Spitting on someone is considered by most as a physical attack. And I think most would put having your friends in the stands physically attack a fan on the same level as attacking him yourself. Just for starters.

You get rid of precedent, you'll only make the situation worse.

[SkiGuy]

You get rid of precedent, you'll only make the situation worse.

This statement is wrong, for so many reasons, during the course of human history, I am not sure it can even be addressed on a messageboard like this.

[jojo]

This statement is wrong, for so many reasons, during the course of human history, I am not sure it can even be addressed on a messageboard like this.
Go ahead and try. And good luck.

[Attitude]

Go ahead and try. And good luck.

Plessy v. Ferguson.

[SkiGuy]

Go ahead and try. And good luck.

You are saying that precedent should guide all diciplinary actions and without it situations can only worsen?

I can think of an entire civil rights movement based upon the notion of BREAKING precedent of law that ended up bettering this country.

[D-Rock]

There are plenty of incidents in the league's history that are just as heinous.

Nothing in the history of the NBA is close to what Steven Jackson did. And, yes that includes Kermit Washington. He threw two haymakers at the head of a man who, at worst, threw a glass of water at Artest while Ron held his friend down. And its not even clear he didn't just spill his water/beer.

I think if you flip Artest and Jackson's punishments Stern would have gotten it right. Especially if there were some kind of clause that only allowed Artest back after taking the medication he has already been prescribed in the past. And Wallace getting six games is pretty crazy.

[BigRed]

Spitting on someone is considered by most as a physical attack. And I think most would put having your friends in the stands physically attack a fan on the same level as attacking him yourself. Just for starters.

You get rid of precedent, you'll only make the situation worse.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that the league has been correct with the suspensions they've levied in the past. For spitting on that girl Barkley should have been suspended for at least 10 games. If it can be proven that Walker sent his thugs/friends to attack someone in the stands then he should have been suspended for a long time (at least 30 games).

What I'd say is that the NBA has been way too lenient for these transgretions in the past and in this case they finally got it just about right. This is the biggest fight in NBA history and it set a brand new precedent.

[jojo]

You are saying that precedent should guide all diciplinary actions and without it situations can only worsen?

I can think of an entire civil rights movement based upon the notion of BREAKING precedent of law that end up bettering this country.
And I can think of a principle underlying that civil rights movement that was abandoned after the revolutionary war. A precedent of human interaction and certain rights available to all men.

[jojo]

Nothing in the history of the NBA is close to what Steven Jackson did. And, yes that includes Kermit Washington. He threw two haymakers at the head of a man who, at worst, threw a glass of water at Artest while Ron held his friend down. And its not even clear he didn't just spill his water/beer.

I think if you flip Artest and Jackson's punishments Stern would have gotten it right. Especially if there were some kind of clause that only allowed Artest back after taking the medication he has already been prescribed in the past. And Wallace getting six games is pretty crazy.
That's only because Walker didn't succeed.

[SkiGuy]

And I can think of a principle underlying that civil rights movement that was abandoned after the revolutionary war. A precedent of human interaction and certain rights available to all men.

How does this refute the precedent that was set, then overturned last century?

[GolfingAndy]

They just said on ESPN being this was an "on court" incident that the CBA dictates that Stern is the arbitrator for these appeals. Good luck on getting any of those suspensions reduced.

[bdubs41]

Especially if there were some kind of clause that only allowed Artest back after taking the medication he has already been prescribed in the past. .

I can't see a clause like that happening. Its one thing to make someone attend anger management, but making someone take pills is obstructing their right to privacy.

[jojo]

How does this refute the precedent that was set, then overturned last century?
It's a simple concept. There was a precedent set for dealing with people fairly and in a predictable manner. It has been underlying in society since history has been recorded. For whatever reasons (greed, lack of tolerance, etc.) people have gone away from those principles at times to suit their own needs. While your example may seem to be the abandoning of precedent, what it really amounts to is getting back on course.

Simplified enough for you all?

But enough about history. Let's get back to abandoning precedent in a sports league. What you do is you undermine your own rules and the belief that your contests aren't fixed. You cause athletes growing up to go to sports where they believe they will get a fair shake. And you basically kill your own numbers.

[jojo]

They just said on ESPN being this was an "on court" incident that the CBA dictates that Stern is the arbitrator for these appeals. Good luck on getting any of those suspensions reduced.
Stern said it yesterday. Doesn't mean that all agree on that issue, and there won't be a battle over it. Doesn't mean that the NBPA will win, either, but it is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

[GolfingAndy]

Stern said it yesterday. Doesn't mean that all agree on that issue, and there won't be a battle over it. Doesn't mean that the NBPA will win, either, but it is still an issue that needs to be resolved.

True, but I just don't see how the NBPA could argue it any other way. The entire incident happened in the arena and directly resulted from on court actions. There was nothing "off court" about the issue.

[SkiGuy]

It's a simple concept. There was a precedent set for dealing with people fairly and in a predictable manner. It has been underlying in society since history has been recorded. For whatever reasons (greed, lack of tolerance, etc.) people have gone away from those principles at times to suit their own needs. While your example may seem to be the abandoning of precedent, what it really amounts to is getting back on course.

Simplified enough for you all?

I would argue that there was indeed precedent set as legislation and legal rulings had been enforced that were "off track." Through various means, a particular group broght light to this inequality and petitioned the government to change the legislation and enforcement of previous laws.

Again, by the way you describe it, even if getting laws back "on track" was the governing idea, it still implies that the laws were "off track" to begin with and therefore legal precedent had to have changed.

All in all, this specific arguement is not the point--what is my original point is that legal or historical (same effective difference I guess) precedent can't be the only governing factor in punishment. If Stern/NBA breaks precedent and the end result is safer players and fans, it's hardly a point to say breaking precedent made/makes things worse.

[bdubs41]

True, but I just don't see how the NBPA could argue it any other way. The entire incident happened in the arena and directly resulted from on court actions. There was nothing "off court" about the issue.

It doesn't matter if they have an argument to argue or not. That's what unions are for.
The fact that they appealed it is a formality. If any player gets suspended or fined, the union automatically strikes an appeal. It's up to the NBAPA to decide how vigorously they want to pursue it.

[Attitude]

It's a simple concept. There was a precedent set for dealing with people fairly and in a predictable manner. It has been underlying in society since history has been recorded. For whatever reasons (greed, lack of tolerance, etc.) people have gone away from those principles at times to suit their own needs. While your example may seem to be the abandoning of precedent, what it really amounts to is getting back on course.

Simplified enough for you all?

But enough about history. Let's get back to abandoning precedent in a sports league. What you do is you undermine your own rules and the belief that your contests aren't fixed. You cause athletes growing up to go to sports where they believe they will get a fair shake. And you basically kill your own numbers.

The precedent was that one group of people got to own another group of people in one-half of the country. Slavery had been around probably as long as there has been recorded history. This is what Ski was getting at.

I still maintain that there isn't enough precedent to say you are breaking precedent here. There just aren't 50 different times where guys ran into the stands and got 10 game suspensions.

Why would this cause anyone to think the result of the game is fixed? I must be missing something.

[jojo]

The precedent was that one group of people got to own another group of people in one-half of the country. Slavery had been around probably as long as their has been recorded history. This is what Ski was getting at.

I still maintain that there isn't enough precedent to say you are breaking precedent here. There just aren't 50 different times where guys ran into the stands and got 10 game suspensions.

Why would this cause anyone to think the result of the game is fixed? I must be missing something.
What happens next time, when instead of Ron Artest, it's LeBron James? You now don't depend on precedent, so James could be back in 6 games if you wanted.

This isn't about changing precedent, which normally takes place gradually and over a period of time. Because this is Ron Artest, people are totally willing to abandon precedent, while they likely would not be if it was a star with whom they could more easily relate.

Is anyone here really willing to say that the punishments would be near the same?

[Tree Hate Me]

Bartelstein took Ron into his fold a few years ago for several reasons.

1) He felt Ron's agent he hired after before his rookie year (his name escapes me now) totally fucked the kid over. This agent allegedly let all of Ron's family and hangers on basically bleed him dry and did nothing to stop it. He also at one point didn't even have Ron on a budget. I mean what the fuck are you his agent for?


Dude, you forgot about the Best Buy story.

Artest briefly took a job at Best Buy during his rookie year to get the employee discount because he was strapped from buying so many toys for his crew. He even put Jerry Krause down as a reference on the application. Word got out and the team made him quit.

He really needs to take his meds.

[Attitude]

What happens next time, when instead of Ron Artest, it's LeBron James? You now don't depend on precedent, so James could be back in 6 games if you wanted.

This isn't about changing precedent, which normally takes place gradually and over a period of time. Because this is Ron Artest, people are totally willing to abandon precedent, while they likely would not be if it was a star with whom they could more easily relate.

If I made the rules? Then James is gone for a year. I can't speak for the NBA but I suspect you are correct.

I think we need to disagree on whether or not this is changing precedent as I've said, I don't think there is adequate precedent for this situation.

[drunkasaurusrex]

My opinion is that, while this is true, should they ever enter the stands, they should be punished in similar fashion.

Attacking a fan is an inexcusable mistake, especially if the player is the party pursuing the confrontation.

Why is attacking a fan an inexcusable mistake? He threw, from the stands, a cup full of something at Artest, who was not in the stands. He, technically, assaulted Artest. What makes this fan's status as a fan so inviolable that he is immune to repercussions from that person who he assaulted? That's complete and utter bullshit in my opinion. The field of play and the stands are not supposed to be a single organic entity. The court is separated from the stands by an imaginary glass wall, of sorts. Once it is shattered, it becomes that single organic entity--or at least has the very real potential to become that--and the onus falls on the shatterer.

I also think the argument that they make millions of dollars that come primarily from the pockets of fans is a bullshit argument as well. Not only does that have nothing to do with the dynamics of the situation with Artest, but it completely ignores that this is not a one-way street. There is a give and take between players and fans when it comes to money paid and earned. Artest gets millions a season and fans, in principle, get someone busting their ass for 48 minutes, 82 times a year to help THEIR team win.

Then there's the whole dynamic in which these guys, at the top of their profession, are so amped up for 48 minutes (especially these two teams who do not, I promise you, invite each other over for tea) that adrenaline and emotions are running at a ridiculous high. Shit, it's that very level of basketball that most of us consider the very best kind to watch. And now, all of a sudden, we're trying to say that the adrenaline and emotion has to disappear when it's at its highest near the end of the game and someone pulls a bullshit, classless act and hits one of the premier players with something from the stands. I'm not saying those fans deserved what they got...well, fuck that, yes I am. They deserved to get fucking trounced and in many cases they got exactly what they deserved.

If you want to have real change when it comes to situations like this, I think you avoid suspensions for player v. fan altercations in which they are provoked by the fan, and leave it all up to the courts with the full support of the NBA and NBAPA. Ask the courts to levy the strictist judgments they can; thus making civil suits more likely with these incidents. This kind of legal headache, I think, will disincentivize players AND fans more than any sort of suspension. Shit, as it stands, the Pacers are basically gutted for half the year because they defended their player and themselves from a bitchass fan, and these fans (who knows how few or many will get charged) will probably end up with some sort of fine and probation, with their season tickets revoked. As it relates to punishments fitting the crimes, the fans are getting O.J.d and the Pacers are getting Abner Louima'd. Straight up.

Dietcokehead, and other like-minded thinkers, live sports is not an interactive enterprise. When someone shatters the divide created between playing field and spectators, that person (be he/she player or spectator) is not only fully responsible for the consequences for their actions, but deserve everything they get.

[SkiGuy]

What happens next time, when instead of Ron Artest, it's LeBron James? You now don't depend on precedent, so James could be back in 6 games if you wanted.

This isn't about changing precedent, which normally takes place gradually and over a period of time. Because this is Ron Artest, people are totally willing to abandon precedent, while they likely would not be if it was a star with whom they could more easily relate.

I would disagree with this comment as well, personally, although I can certainly see where you are going with the point.

The truth is, however, six games out, and the fans would have forgotten the next NBA jackass that attacked a fan and got booted. The attention span is far too short for them to worry about one person, regardless of their "star" quality. For an example, I remember a whole skating community that lauded the talents of a young Tanya Harding, and she fell out of public appeal rather quickly after her misdeeds.

[DietCokehead]

Let's get back to abandoning precedent in a sports league. What you do is you undermine your own rules and the belief that your contests aren't fixed. You cause athletes growing up to go to sports where they believe they will get a fair shake. And you basically kill your own numbers.
I would agree if this was an on-court, during-the-game incident. However, the fact remains that players entered the stands and attacked people not directly involved with the game.

It was their actions, not any sort of official involvement, that altered the Pacers' games for the remainder of the year.

If he had received a suddenly huge suspension for an oft-repeated act (fighting, flagrant foul, or even an emotional, monitor-breaking outburst), I would likely agree with you. Artest, Jackson, and O'Neal went well beyond this when they became physically involved with fans in the altercation, especially with fans who were not posing an imminent threat.

[Sharts]

I agree with this statement 100%. The only group of fans close is Philly.

The only basketball season ticket holders that would be even close would indeed be Philly. In the NFL I don't know who would win between Eagles and Raiders fans. It would be a toss-up.

[Attitude]

Dietcokehead, and other like-minded thinkers, live sports is not an interactive enterprise. When someone shatters the divide created between playing field and spectators, that person (be he/she player or spectator) is not only fully responsible for the consequences for their actions, but deserve everything they get.

Assuming I fall into the "like-minded thinkers", what did Harry Potter do that he deserved to be grabbed by Artest? If a fan throws something at a player, it does not give that player the right to go attack "fans" generally. Fans should not be let off the hook either. To the extent they can be identified, they should at least lose their season tickets and be prosecuted. No one thinks Reuben Stoddard should get to walk away scott-free here. And no one is sticking up for the fat Mexican on the court.

[Brown Man]

I would agree if this was an on-court, during-the-game incident. However, the fact remains that players entered the stands and attacked people not directly involved with the game.

It was their actions, not any sort of official involvement, that altered the Pacers' games for the remainder of the year.

If he had received a suddenly huge suspension for an oft-repeated act (fighting, flagrant foul, or even an emotional, monitor-breaking outburst), I would likely agree with you. Artest, Jackson, and O'Neal went well beyond this when they became physically involved with fans in the altercation, especially with fans who were not posing an imminent threat.

O'Neal hit the fan on the court. Frankly, I don't think O'Neal did one thing wrong. Once the fans come onto the court/field of play in an aggressive manner, they deserve the beat down. Then, O'Neal had a coat, fleece, box of popcorn and a few other things thrown at him. Are you saying his response was well beyond the bounds of rationality? I just don't see it. He totally had reason to hurt people. Detroit fans are the craziest around and they deserved everything they got.

[SkiGuy]

Well said point...

Is this to say, perhaps, that you would be in favor of enclosing players in an arena (much like ice hockey) to help prevent future misfortunes?

True enough that there should be a clear line between players and fans, but how can you draw that line hard enough that people still identify with the players enough to want to pay hundreds of dollars to see them (get sprayed by their sweat, get tossed their arm bands, sign autographs) because they can "be a part of the action" and keeping everyone safe?

[jojo]

O'Neal hit the fan on the court. Frankly, I don't think O'Neal did one thing wrong. Once the fans come onto the court/field of play in an aggressive manner, they deserve the beat down. Then, O'Neal had a coat, fleece, box of popcorn and a few other things thrown at him. Are you saying his response was well beyond the bounds of rationality? I just don't see it. He totally had reason to hurt people. Detroit fans are the craziest around and they deserved everything they got.
Not to mention, fans who run onto the field at baseball games and football games are routinely tackled and/or knocked around with no penalties for the players who do so.

I don't remember any suspensions for the Gamboa incident.

[Brown Man]

If a fan throws something at a player, it does not give that player the right to go attack "fans" generally.

This is the exact point that bothers me. A fan can "generally" throw anything they want at professional athletes? Why is this? If a fan acts with physical aggression towards an athlete (i.e., throwing shit at them), then I would expect the athlete to beat the shit out of the fan. Jerry Sloan had a similar incident as a player. A fan threw an aerosol can which hit Sloan in the head. Sloan proceded to give the fan a beat down.

[drunkasaurusrex]

Assuming I fall into the "like-minded thinkers", what did Harry Potter do that he deserved to be grabbed by Artest? If a fan throws something at a player, it does not give that player the right to go attack "fans" generally. Fans should not be let off the hook either. To the extent they can be identified, they should at least lose their season tickets and be prosecuted. No one thinks Reuben Stoddard should get to walk away scott-free here. And no one is sticking up for the fat Mexican on the court.


this is one of the main reasons I would leave this up to the courts and forego these league suspensions (excluding those, of course, for on court conduct).

I understand that the NBA has the legal right to enforce its own code of conduct as it relates to its players. I understand that, if there was some sort of uniform code of punishment, Stern has the right to punish these players for going into the stands as it's a violation of that league's rules.

I think, however, that it's somewhat unfair and misguided to have to systems of permissible conduct and resulting punishment for groups of people who regular spend 2.5-3 hours 30 feet from one another when one of those groups with the considerably more lax set of standards is regularly hostile toward half of the other group.

I reject the notion that these players have to be held to so much higher a standard of conduct that it precludes them from protecting themselves or reacting to assault from outside the playing field. I believe that the division in groups and the differences in permissible conduct disappear when someone from one group assaults/attacks someone from the other. Those divisions disappear, as the offender has insinuated himself into the world of the victim.

That is why I think you leave punishments to the courts and you put your full weight behind stiff sentencing/fines/punishments

[D-Rock]

Why is attacking a fan an inexcusable mistake? He threw, from the stands, a cup full of something at Artest, who was not in the stands. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Nobody but nobody is maintaining that Harry Potter was the fan who hit Artest with the cup. If you watch the tape and look at the angle the cup arrives from there is no way anyone near Harry Potter could have thrown it. Impossible. Artest had no way of knowing who threw it (it was apparently the woman he initially passes) and basically made a bee line for that fan who again, coincidentally or not, was a lot smaller than the 5 fans he passed to get there.
The field of play and the stands are not supposed to be a single organic entity. The court is separated from the stands by an imaginary glass wall, of sorts. Once it is shattered, it becomes that single organic entity--or at least has the very real potential to become that--and the onus falls on the shatterer. Single organic entity? WTF?
I'm not saying those fans deserved what they got...well, fuck that, yes I am. They deserved to get fucking trounced and in many cases they got exactly what they deserved. Are you honestly arguing that the actions of a single fan justifies players entering the stands and attacking people who weren't involved in that incident? Are you fucking serious? The fans that were initially attacked by Artest and Jackson did nothing to warrant that attack. So are fans now collectivley responsible for the actions of all other fans. What? This is making me rethink my season tickets at Comiskey knowing that Carlos Lee can storm my section and attack me the next time a William Ligue enters the field. Shit, as it stands, the Pacers are basically gutted for half the year because they defended their player and themselves from a bitchass fan, and these fans (who knows how few or many will get charged) will probably end up with some sort of fine and probation, with their season tickets revoked. Your comprehension of the facts here is baffling. The two people Artest and Jackson attacked were, by all news accounts, randoms and not involved in the cup throwing/water throwing incident.When someone shatters the divide created between playing field and spectators, that person (be he/she player or spectator) is not only fully responsible for the consequences for their actions, but deserve everything they get.
And apprently, every fan there is also responsible for the actions of that fan as well.

[DietCokehead]

O'Neal hit the fan on the court. Frankly, I don't think O'Neal did one thing wrong. Once the fans come onto the court/field of play in an aggressive manner, they deserve the beat down. Then, O'Neal had a coat, fleece, box of popcorn and a few other things thrown at him. Are you saying his response was well beyond the bounds of rationality? I just don't see it. He totally had reason to hurt people. Detroit fans are the craziest around and they deserved everything they got.

The fan O'Neal hit did nothing but push Artest off of his friend, who Artest had punched. They did not need to be on the floor, but the fan in question did no more to warrant being punched that Fred Jones did.

Also, the person who threw the cup has been identified (there was a link in one of my earlier posts), and he was not involved in any of the later incidents.

[SkiGuy]

I reject the notion that these players have to be held to so much higher a standard of conduct...

Only to play the devil's advocate:
But we do this all the time. Politicians and television personalities are held to a higher standard, despite that a group of people in one particular profession (journalists), can broadcast very invasionary and or private photos or details about a person due to the public's "right to know" and the established laws regarding celebraties.

The idea is, I think, that you can hold the NBA players to a higher standard because they specifically sign up for the job with the knowledge that self-restraint, even in a coarse environment, may be necessary at certain times. They are using their likeness and image in a public forum to promote NBA basketball and their team.

[drunkasaurusrex]

Vinyard misunderstanding my point

we can say in retrospect, that those fans who were hit by Jackson and Artest were undeserving. I understand that. And dude, I watch this unfold live on TV for two hours, I saw every conceivable camera angle. My point is that Artest went in there after the person he thought hit him, Jackson went in after him, got hit with water and went in after who he thought attacked them. I agree with whoever said that Jackson deserves the stiffer of the penalties because he truly was out of control. The majority of my argument relates to Artest's actions and punishment.

I am also not arguing that the actions of one fan justify players going into the stands and attacking people. Artest went after the PERSON he thought hit him. Jackson, arguably, went after the PERSON who threw shit at him and Artest--although Jackson was out of his fucking gourd on the court so I wouldn't be surprised if he was just going in there to bang heads in which case he would probably deserve a stiffer punishment than he received. Jermaine O'Neal went after the PERSON who attacked Artest on the court.

With the possible exception of Jackson getting black out crazy, I don't think this was an instance of players going after just anybody. The fact that they got the wrong people, I think, is another reason to put this in the courts.

as for "single organic entity," it's a phrase used to describe mob mentality.

[DietCokehead]

Why is attacking a fan an inexcusable mistake? He threw, from the stands, a cup full of something at Artest, who was not in the stands. He, technically, assaulted Artest.

The person attacked had nothing to do with throwing the cup. The fan who threw it has been identified and was in no way involved in Artest and Jackson's attack, nor the resulting melee.

I also think the argument that they make millions of dollars that come primarily from the pockets of fans is a bullshit argument as well... Artest gets millions a season and fans, in principle, get someone busting their ass for 48 minutes, 82 times a year to help THEIR team win.

In the same vein, then, he should be punished when he takes action that is counter-productive to this. What would be the impact if you acted in a similar fashion in your job? Would you still have a job, even? The money isn't the issue, but he should be without pay when he acted as he did, especially to someone who DID NOT assault him, regardless of the emotions he had going.

Then there's the whole dynamic... And now, all of a sudden, we're trying to say that the adrenaline and emotion has to disappear when it's at its highest near the end of the game and someone pulls a bullshit, classless act and hits one of the premier players with something from the stands. I'm not saying those fans deserved what they got...well, fuck that, yes I am. They deserved to get fucking trounced and in many cases they got exactly what they deserved.

You're saying that fans that happened to be near the man who threw the cup, and who probably taunted Artest, as fans do all game in every arena, deserved to be attacked? I do not defend those who were beaten after attacking the players, but why should this have even happened? How can you defend Artest or Jackson in any way at all?

If you want to have real change when it comes to situations like this, I think you avoid suspensions for player v. fan altercations in which they are provoked by the fan, and leave it all up to the courts with the full support of the NBA and NBAPA.

Artest did not attack the person who provoked him. Read the story, watch the tape, whatever. The person he initially went after, the act which turned this whole incident loose, had done nothing to provoke him in this manner. I would feel differently, maybe, if he had attacked the right fan, but he did not. Stephen Jackson had no reason to be in the stands, except to thug it out.

Dietcokehead, and other like-minded thinkers, live sports is not an interactive enterprise. When someone shatters the divide created between playing field and spectators, that person (be he/she player or spectator) is not only fully responsible for the consequences for their actions, but deserve everything they get.

The divide was shattered by Artest, in the incident on the whole. The fan who threw the cup was never involved again after that act. As such, it was Artest and then Jackson who opened up this Pandora's Box, and they should be penalized accordingly. My only complaint is that Jackson should have been disciplined as harshly as Artest, if not moreso, as he had zero reason to be in the stands, and he threw the first punch.

[DietCokehead]

I am also not arguing that the actions of one fan justify players going into the stands and attacking people. Artest went after the PERSON he thought hit him. Jackson, arguably, went after the PERSON who threw shit at him and Artest--although Jackson was out of his fucking gourd on the court so I wouldn't be surprised if he was just going in there to bang heads in which case he would probably deserve a stiffer punishment than he received. Jermaine O'Neal went after the PERSON who attacked Artest on the court.

With the possible exception of Jackson getting black out crazy, I don't think this was an instance of players going after just anybody. The fact that they got the wrong people, I think, is another reason to put this in the courts.

Watch it again. O'Neal hit the guy who was with the person Artest was tangling with at that point. All that he did was try to break it up. As soon as he managed to separate Artest and his friend, he caught O'Neal's fist to his head.

I don't know what words were exchanged, but he most definitely did nothing to deserve that punch. His friend might be a different story.

[drunkasaurusrex]

Watch it again. O'Neal hit the guy who was with the person Artest was tangling with at that point. All that he did was try to break it up. As soon as he managed to separate Artest and his friend, he caught O'Neal's fist to his head.

I don't know what words were exchanged, but he most definitely did nothing to deserve that punch. His friend might be a different story.

there is actually quite a bit of doubt about this particular instance because the camera angle changes as O'Neal comes into the fray. Some accounts have the guy who got clocked moving to go back at Artest, some don't. Either way, he and his hard-charging buddy were on the court during a melee in which they had previously come at Artest in an aggressive posture. If there are two people who deserve zero sypmathy it's those two.

[jojo]

Artest did not attack the person who provoked him. Read the story, watch the tape, whatever. The person he initially went after, the act which turned this whole incident loose, had done nothing to provoke him in this manner. I would feel differently, maybe, if he had attacked the right fan, but he did not. Stephen Jackson had no reason to be in the stands, except to thug it out.



The divide was shattered by Artest, in the incident on the whole. The fan who threw the cup was never involved again after that act. As such, it was Artest and then Jackson who opened up this Pandora's Box, and they should be penalized accordingly. My only complaint is that Jackson should have been disciplined as harshly as Artest, if not moreso, as he had zero reason to be in the stands, and he threw the first punch.
Except in every other circumstance, including criminal proceedings in this matter, the reasonableness of his belief that he had the right person would be taken into account. You're willing to throw the book at him because he held down someone he believed threw something at him and asked "did you do it" simply because he didn't get the right guy.

[D-Rock]

for "single organic entity," it's a phrase used to describe mob mentality. I'm a big crowd psychology guy. I just don't see how the notion or an "organic entity" applies here especially because I think that there are two distinct "organic entities" in a conventional sports arena and its only in instances like this that they merge.

There was simply no way Artest could have had any idea who threw the cup. Impossible. So to say that Artest went after the person he thought threw the cup is, at best, disingenuous. Ron could have deluded himself into thinking Harry Potter was the guy but whoever he decided to attack was nearly guaranteed to be a random.

Personally I don't think O'Neal is being punished primarily for his actions on the court. Until Stern comments more we won't know but O'Neal apparently had a rather significant incident off camera that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Although in the standard footage you only see him getting restrained by one of his teammates (James Jones, I think), O'Neal was indeed in the stands fighting.

Jackson is clearly most culpable of the three of them. Even the talking heads on ESPN are picking up on this now.

[jojo]

Watch it again. O'Neal hit the guy who was with the person Artest was tangling with at that point. All that he did was try to break it up. As soon as he managed to separate Artest and his friend, he caught O'Neal's fist to his head.

I don't know what words were exchanged, but he most definitely did nothing to deserve that punch. His friend might be a different story.
He did nothing to deserve that punch? He broke that same divide that Artest broke. That's nothing?

[DietCokehead]

He did nothing to deserve that punch? He broke that same divide that Artest broke. That's nothing?

By that logic, Fred Jones deserved to be punched, too.

[drunkasaurusrex]

I'm a big crowd psychology guy. I just don't see how the notion or an "organic entity" applies here especially because I think that there are two distinct "organic entities" in a conventional sports arena and its only in instances like this that they merge.

That was my point. I think you misread it.


There was simply no way Artest could have had any idea who threw the cup. Impossible. So to say that Artest went after the person he thought threw the cup is, at best, disingenuous. Ron could have deluded himself into thinking Harry Potter was the guy but whoever he decided to attack was nearly guaranteed to be a random.

That's an assumption on your part. You could very well be right, but if he thought he had good cause and was simply mistaken (rather than the alternative, which is just looking to cause mayhem) then I think those circumstances warrant looking at this situation more closely with a little more nuance...hence, taking it to the courts. Although I think Harry Potter may do that on his own.

And I agree 100% about Jackson. Out of Control.

[DietCokehead]

Except in every other circumstance, including criminal proceedings in this matter, the reasonableness of his belief that he had the right person would be taken into account. You're willing to throw the book at him because he held down someone he believed threw something at him and asked "did you do it" simply because he didn't get the right guy.

He should have never been in the crowd in the first place.

That said, he basically tackled this person. It's not as if he simply grabbed his arm and asked and/or corrected him.

Not that grabbing someone's arm and making comments to them after behavior thought to be inappropriate has ever gotten anyone fired or otherwise disciplined in the sporting world, especially not someone with a history of explosive, unpredictable, or arguably violent behavior. Right?

[jojo]

He should have never been in the crowd in the first place.

That said, he basically tackled this person. It's not as if he simply grabbed his arm and asked and/or corrected him.

Not that grabbing someone's arm and making comments to them after behavior thought to be inappropriate has ever gotten anyone fired or otherwise disciplined in the sporting world, especially not someone with a history of explosive, unpredictable, or arguably violent behavior. Right?
Absolutely not right.

If someone threw something at you in any other setting, do you really think that you wouldn't have the right to detain them and ask if they did it, no matter what your past behavior? I've seen it happen in courtrooms, law offices, classrooms, etc. with no consequences because the actions were deemed reasonable after a thorough investigation. And I guarantee that student-teacher divide is much more important than the player-fan divide.

[DietCokehead]

Absolutely not right.

If someone threw something at you in any other setting, do you really think that you wouldn't have the right to detain them and ask if they did it, no matter what your past behavior? I've seen it happen in courtrooms, law offices, classrooms, etc. with no consequences because the actions were deemed reasonable after a thorough investigation. And I guarantee that student-teacher divide is much more important than the player-fan divide.

Detaining them is one thing, but tackling them when they aren't fleeing or fighting is quite another.

Also, this would depend on how Artest even came to determine it was that fan. If memory serves, he claimed, initially, to have approached this fan because he screamed a racial slur, aimed at Artest. If he had no legitimate means for doing so, which he didn't from the tape(s). As such, his actions were not reasonable in that the cup had been thrown from a different area entirely.

[jojo]

Detaining them is one thing, but tackling them when they aren't fleeing or fighting is quite another.

Also, this would depend on how Artest even came to determine it was that fan. If memory serves, he claimed, initially, to have approached this fan because he screamed a racial slur, aimed at Artest. If he had no legitimate means for doing so, which he didn't from the tape(s). As such, his actions were not reasonable in that the cup had been thrown from a different area entirely.
There was no inquiry done, other than the tapes. Most of the interviews did not take place until after punishment was decided, and Artest himself was never contacted by the league. Additionally, these were mainly media interviews and not part of the investigation. Talk all you want about hindsight reasonableness. This was nowhere near a situation where the justification of his actions was taken into account.

[DietCokehead]

There was no inquiry done, other than the tapes. Most of the interviews did not take place until after punishment was decided, and Artest himself was never contacted by the league. Additionally, these were mainly media interviews and not part of the investigation. Talk all you want about hindsight reasonableness. This was nowhere near a situation where the justification of his actions was taken into account.

The situation is clearly not ideal. However, Artest did not exactly take into account the impact his actions would have, either.

Even if he'd identified the exact person who had thrown the cup, he was still not justified in his actions. They were over-the-top and out of line. Now, the fact that he didn't know who did it only makes the situation worse.

A grown man has no need to go after someone like that, over one thrown drink, when no injury was done. If he was being pelted, or it had been, say, a bottle, then maybe. As it was, he should have let security handle the situation, and the end result could have possibly been avoided.

Then again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure that's what Artest, Jackson, and O'Neal are realizing now.

[IndyDave]

As it was, he should have let security handle the situation, and the end result could have possibly been avoided.

Then again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure that's what Artest, Jackson, and O'Neal are realizing now.

Not to beat a dead horse, but since security never handled the situation when he'd been pelted on previous occasions, why would he think things would be different this time?

I have no idea what his thoughts were at the time this happened, but getting justice via the "security taking care of it" couldn't have even been a consideration, one would think.

[DietCokehead]

Not to beat a dead horse, but since security never handled the situation when he'd been pelted on previous occasions, why would he think things would be different this time?

I have no idea what his thoughts were at the time this happened, but getting justice via the "security taking care of it" couldn't have even been a consideration, one would think.

The point is that he should have. It was one item, and the damage was done (if it could even be called damage). If he had just done nothing, or even stormed off the court, the whole situation would have been different.

My point is that he should have simply let the powers that be handle the situation. There was no good way for his decision to play out, even if he had found the right person.

Again, hindsight... 20/20... etc.

[DietCokehead]

The early reports were inaccurate. The guy who threw the beer is the one in the white cap and blue jersey who grabs Artest when he went after "Harry Potter."

He has been banned from all future Pistons home games, and has on his record one previous assault charge and 3 incidents of drunk driving.

If the rest could have been avoided, I wish that Artest would have beaten him into total submission, though I would still support similar penalties. This is just one of those incidents when one idiot ruined a lot of things for a lot of people, from Ron Artest (who's still not blameless) to NBA and Pacers fans everywhere.

This situation was terrible, and I will not accept any excuses for anyone other than Artest who became involved. Artest, while not blameless, is certainly less of a villain, here. Still, though, he should have just left the scene, and he will now have to serve his punishment out, hopefully in a respectable manner.

The entire situation is pure ugliness, and I wish that it could have been avoided. Clearer heads did not prevail, and punishments must now be served by all sides. Athletes are held to a higher level of behavior, and their punishments reflect that. Just as they are paid more to do their jobs, they are fined more heavily when they cross lines that detract from those jobs and the fanbase that supports them. My only hope is that other players learn from this altercation. That would at least be a silver lining on this darkness.

[RunDownHouse]

According to the Sports Guy's column today (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/cowbell/041122), Fat Albert (Ruben Stoddard, or whoever that was that attacked Jones from behind) is actually a member of Ben Wallace's posse.

[GolfingAndy]

According to the Sports Guy's column today (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/cowbell/041122), Fat Albert (Ruben Stoddard, or whoever that was that attacked Jones from behind) is actually a member of Ben Wallace's posse.

It was his brother.

[wfujim]

If Artest's suspension holds up, what do you think the chances are he turns up in a Euro league or another venue (after some "time off" to promote his album)? It sounds like he's hurting for cash, and might be a good way to stay in game shape (I've heard he's supposedly a gym rat).

[DietCokehead]

If Artest's suspension holds up, what do you think the chances are he turns up in a Euro league or another venue (after some "time off" to promote his album)? It sounds like he's hurting for cash, and might be a good way to stay in game shape (I've heard he's supposedly a gym rat).

He would either have to walk away from his Pacers contract, or the team would have to release him. Neither possibility is very likely. He'll just sit out for the year.

[wfujim]

He would either have to walk away from his Pacers contract, or the team would have to release him. Neither possibility is very likely. He'll just sit out for the year.

Oh ok - I wasn't sure how all the NBA contacts worked, and I was just basing my question on what alot of the NHL guys are doing right now, although the circumstances there are quite different.

[jojo]

This isn't right either. The NBA has a partnership with FIBA whereby each side acknowledges the contracts on the other end. Artest would not be allowed to simply walk away from his contract, similar to the way that European players cannot simply walk away from their contracts and play in the NBA.

FIBA is, in effect, the world's governing body for basketball.

[jojo]

Oh ok - I wasn't sure how all the NBA contacts worked, and I was just basing my question on what alot of the NHL guys are doing right now, although the circumstances there are quite different.
As for the NHL comparison, this should clarify the differences for you:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1998/12/10/overseas_players/

[mrjake]

So, here's my delima with this whole thing: This issue being physically/verbally agressive in their attacks towards players/officals in all sports has been building for years. What do you do to stop that?

I'm not going to sit here and try to downplay what Artest/Jackson/O'Neal did. It was terrible. They are large, highly-skilled and powerful athletes who could, quite literally, kill another human being with their bare hands (see: Kermit Washington/Rudy T.). They deserve to be punished. However, their punishments, especially in how they effect the players, their teams, and public perception, are going to be much much more severe than those meted out to the fans, at least one of whom was partially responsible for this incident, and many of whom assisted in escalating the situation to the point that it was, in many ways, a full-blown disaster.

What kind of message does this incident send to the (in this case, quite literally) criminals in the stands who would assault players on the floor who are for the most part vulnerable and defensless from a huge angry, esentially unaccountable throng hovering over them?

Let's look at it this way...

Ron Artest: $5 million down the tubes, his character (which he has honestly tried to improve) further impuned, his ability to make a living threatened, and his legacy (whatever it may be in the end) tarnished.

Joe Fan: Misdemeanor assault charge. (If they catch you.) $500 fine, six months unsupervised probation. Banned from the arena. Oh, yeah, and a nice fat out-of-court settlement because Ron-Ron and the Pacers are better off giving the guy $100,000 right now rather than letting this drag out for months or years, regardless of his criminal liability or even a potential civil claim that the Pacers may have against him.

For what it's worth, given his extensive criminal history, the fan who pitched whatever it was at Artest may actually end up doing some time in the 'slam. But, most of the public involved will most likely never be charged.

So, if I'm Joe Fan, and I've got a belly full of beer, this sounds like a damned good bargain to me. Hell, even sober it doesn't sound like such a bad deal. I'm sure if I wanted to do so, I could sneak a few nice-sized slingin' rocks into Conseco Fieldhouse the next time the Pistons are in town and deliver some biblical justice, David v. Goliath-style. And I know that there's a good chance that I could get away with a slap on the wrist if not scot-free altogether.*

EDIT:*I am NOT going to do this. It is an example only.

[DietCokehead]

Ron Artest: $5 million down the tubes, his character (which he has honestly tried to improve) further impuned, his ability to make a living threatened, and his legacy (whatever it may be in the end) tarnished.

Joe Fan: Misdemeanor assault charge. (If they catch you.) $500 fine, six months unsupervised probation...

If you, even possibly, had $5M in salary at stake, would you have stormed into the stands?

Artest made the mistake in climbing into the stands, regardless. The incident was over, and he wasn't hurt. As hard as it might have been, he should have stayed on the court, or even just headed to the locker room.

I do, however, believe that Stephen Jackson was the worst offender in it all, and I am not defending the beer-thrower, either. I am simply stating that Artest made a monumental mistake, and he is now paying the consequences.

[mrjake]

If you, even possibly, had $5M in salary at stake, would you have stormed into the stands?Probably not. I wasn't in his shoes, so I can't say with absolute certainity. But, it certainly seems patently stupid to me.

However, I do know that, if I was sitting in the stands, drunk, wanting to show off my machismo to a building full of fans known for being belligerant to opposing teams, throwing a beer (or worse) at a player widely despised by those fans and known as a magnet for controversy with, at the most, a misdemeanor arrest at stake, I might just do it.

As I said, this isn't a defense of Artest. I think he got what he deserved and I think he's lucky he didn't get the Shoeless Joe treatment. However, an example needs to be made of these fans, too.

Look at it this way: you're a Detroit fan. You realize that if you piss the Indiana players off badly enough, you basically assure your team a conference championship. While we can argue about the lack of restraint on the part of the Indiana players, the one thing that's obvious is that to allow those fans to go without substantial punishment (read: real jail time) is only going to encourage fans throughout the leauge to resort to increasingly obnoxious and even violent tactics in an attempt to influence the outcomes of games and seasons.

[Tree Hate Me]

Look at it this way: you're a Detroit fan. You realize that if you piss the Indiana players off badly enough, you basically assure your team a conference championship.

I think you're giving those Pistons fans a little too much credit here. I doubt those jokers were thinking that by throwing cups and duking it out they would be getting the Pacer players suspended and thus improving their team's chances of winning the East. They were representin' the D as only they can. This is the same city the made burning shit down to the ground famous. Win or lose.

[mrjake]

I think you're giving those Pistons fans a little too much credit here. I doubt those jokers were thinking that by throwing cups and duking it out they would be getting the Pacer players suspended and thus improving their team's chances of winning the East. They were representin' the D as only they can.True, true. However, the net effect of their fans actions was to effectively casterate the Pacers. Did they set out to do that? Probably not. However, how can the team be allowed to benefit from the anti-social and criminal actions of their fans? Furthermore, and more importantly, when will this happen again, perhaps with more nefarious intent, unless these fans get the book thrown at them?This is the same city the made burning shit down to the ground famous. Win or lose.Ah, yes, Devil's Night, oh how I miss the footage...

[Tree Hate Me]

Furthermore, and more importantly, when will this happen again, perhaps with more nefarious intent, unless these fans get the book thrown at them?

That's the rub. The stadiums and arenas I've been to in the last couple years have all clearly announced (over the PA) a message about fan interference and rowdiness and the fines and penalties that will result if it happens during the game.

Problem is those penalties aren't stiff enough to deter these people. The Patron Saint of Shirtless Morons, William Ligue (who threw the beating on KC 1st base coach Tom Gamboa) served very little time, if any.

[BigChops]

Bottom line here. The idiot that threw the beer at Artest was spotted immediately by security, and they were headed over to arrest and remove his ass from the premises before Artest decided to rush the stands and start a riot.

Hell, it might have not even escalated to the point that it did, if it were not for two factors:

1) Picking the wrong fucking guy to go level.

2) Stephen Jackson and Jermain O'neil following him into the stands launching haymakers, for no apparent reason, just for the opportunity to go lay out some Detroit white boys.

[jojo]

If you, even possibly, had $5M in salary at stake, would you have stormed into the stands?

Artest made the mistake in climbing into the stands, regardless. The incident was over, and he wasn't hurt. As hard as it might have been, he should have stayed on the court, or even just headed to the locker room.
Alright, let's up the ante.

Would you really be calling for the same penalties if it were Robert Knight instead of Ron Artest?

[kibitzer]

Ah, yes, Devil's Night, oh how I miss the footage...

Just to clear up geographic and demographic misconceptions:

Auburn Hills is over 30 miles from Detroit in Oakland County, one of the wealthiest counties in the country. While SMART, Detroit's public transit system, runs buses from the Detroit to the Palace, the vast majority of Pistons fans, including the white-hat wearing cup thrower, are not from the city.

The abadoned buildings that went up in smoke on past Devil's nights were primarily the responsibility of Detroit residents, though on occasion suburban dwellers were found to have gone into the city to get their arson on.

The drunken suburban Palace instigators and urban arsonists are two very different groups of people, united in their desire to fuck shit up.

[mrjake]

Stuff about DetroitletIf I can't cheer for my Pacers this year, I'm going to elevate making fun of Detroit to a professional sport.

[DietCokehead]

Alright, let's up the ante.

Would you really be calling for the same penalties if it were Robert Knight instead of Ron Artest?

Ah, I knew this was coming, though I expected it sooner.

The difference with Knight and Artest is that Knight did not have a history of being punished for his actions, really, at least by the University. The administration, up until the end, had really not taken much, if any action. Then, he was suddenly dismissed. (Accounts of verbal abuse, plant-throwing, and other incidents involving other University staff vary greatly depending on who's interviewed. The Neil Reed tape is not indicative of physical abuse, and others there that day backed statements that what Knight was accused of was not what happened, no matter how it looked on that blurry video.)

That said, Knight also never tore into someone who was not confronting him face-to-face, and this includes the LSU fan who was placed into the trashcan. And, save the one that followed his dismissal, a riot has never taken place because of Knight. Even then, he flew in to calm the crowd.

If he ever climbed into the crowd to blindly lash out, then I would recommend similar punishment. Bobby has made a lot of mistakes, but none were of this magnitude.

[Brown Man]

Bottom line here. The idiot that threw the beer at Artest was spotted immediately by security, and they were headed over to arrest and remove his ass from the premises before Artest decided to rush the stands and start a riot.

Is this even true? I didn't think authorities/security had any idea about who threw the bottle until after reviewing a lot of tape.

On another point, how many times do fans throw things onto the field of play without any repercussion--especially where the mob mentality has commenced? I can recall dozens of incidence where this has happened in baseball, football and college basketball because of a questionable call by an official. Prior to Friday night, expecting security to necessarily handle these situations was a dubious proposition at best provided that the fan's behavior was not totally overboard (e.g., gamboa incident). Fans in the bleachers at wrigley threw beer and a lot of other things on the field following a Kerry Wood and Dusty Baker eruption last season. My guess is security was unable to do much in that situation.

I just don't understand the mentality where people believe these professional athletes have to always be above the fray. Obviously the heckling and verbal abuse comes with the territory, but people throwning shit at you crosses the line. As Charles Barkley said, "if someone would've thrown something at me, it would be on..."

[jojo]

Ah, I knew this was coming, though I expected it sooner.

The difference with Knight and Artest is that Knight did not have a history of being punished for his actions, really, at least by the University. The administration, up until the end, had really not taken much, if any action. Then, he was suddenly dismissed. (Accounts of verbal abuse, plant-throwing, and other incidents involving other University staff vary greatly depending one who's interviewed. The Neil Reed tape is not indicative of physical abuse, and others there that day backed statements that what Knight was accused of was not what happened, no matter how it looked on that blurry video.)

That said, Knight also never tore into someone who was not confronting him face-to-face, and this includes the LSU fan who was placed into the trashcan. And, save the one that followed his dismissal, a riot has never taken place because of Knight. Even then, he flew in to calm the crowd.

If he ever climbed into the crowd to blindly lash out, then I would recommend similar punishment. Bobby has made a lot of mistakes, but none were of this magnitude.
Nonsense. The line between student and faculty has always been held in the highest regard in so many aspects of our society, especially at an institution of higher learning. Grabbing a player... no, a student athlete by the throat is most certainly of the same magnitude as Artest's actions. Grabbing a student by the arm for a lack of respect certainly shows less restraint than Artest did. Hell, his confrontations with the only impartial individuals involved in sporting events, the referees, is on par with Artest's actions.

No, the difference is that you are willing to try to understand his conduct and rationalize why he might do what he did. The same understanding was not afforded to Artest by David Stern, and is not being afforded to him by most others.

[DietCokehead]

I just don't understand the mentality where people believe these professional athletes have to always be above the fray. Obviously the heckling and verbal abuse comes with the territory, but people throwning shit at you crosses the line. As Charles Barkley said, "if someone would've thrown something at me, it would be on..."

Governance has to happen somewhere, and the most logical place for it is where it will have the most effectiveness. A group of about 40 players in a stadium holding thousands of spectators are much easier to control than the masses. If they don't lash back, the situation is less likely to escalate.

That said, they can always leave. No one is forcing them to be on that floor if the conditions are beyond what they deem safe.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. The fact of the matter is that the fans can never be controlled in the same way the players, coaches, refs, or anyone else on that floor can be. This is not to say that fans should be given free rein, but the reality is that, no matter what, they are never going to be as realistically controlled, as a whole. Individuals who go above and beyond the masses can be, and have been, prosecuted.

[Brown Man]

Nonsense. The line between student and faculty has always been held in the highest regard in so many aspects of our society, especially at an institution of higher learning. Grabbing a player... no, a student athlete by the throat is most certainly of the same magnitude as Artest's actions. Grabbing a student by the arm for a lack of respect certainly shows less restraint than Artest did. Hell, his confrontations with the only impartial individuals involved in sporting events, the referees, is on par with Artest's actions.

No, the difference is that you are willing to try to understand his conduct and rationalize why he might do what he did. The same understanding was not afforded to Artest by David Stern, and is not being afforded to him by most others.

...or throwing the chair across the floor after one of his patented eruptions.

[GolfingAndy]

...or throwing the chair across the floor after one of his patented eruptions.

What if said chair had slipped and went into the stands instead of skidding across the floor towards the officials?

[jojo]

...or throwing the chair across the floor after one of his patented eruptions.
Basically. The truth of the matter is that the line that never should be crossed is the line between official and competitor, since it also serves to potentially bias the result of the competition. But how many games does that result in? Headbutt a ref? Spit on an ump? Confront a ref at the loading dock?

Not 73.

[DietCokehead]

Nonsense. The line between student and faculty has always been held in the highest regard in so many aspects of our society, especially at an institution of higher learning. Grabbing a player... no, a student athlete by the throat is most certainly of the same magnitude as Artest's actions. Grabbing a student by the arm for a lack of respect certainly shows less restraint than Artest did. Hell, his confrontations with the only impartial individuals involved in sporting events, the referees, is on par with Artest's actions.

No, the difference is that you are willing to try to understand his conduct and rationalize why he might do what he did. The same understanding was not afforded to Artest by David Stern, and is not being afforded to him by most others.

Wrong.

You're only taking into measure one account of each incident.

By essentially all accounts, Knight was not grabbing Neil Reed by the throat. He was grabbing him by the shoulders. Coaches, other players, and Knight all spoke to this. Reed contradicted him, and he did it long after the fact. Knight, while explosive, was not known to be physically abusive to his players. He disciplined them with additional exercise, similar to the line-running sentence handed to Andre Emmett when he arrived at Tech.

In the incident that resulted in his dismissal, the student and his brothers' statements match almost identically to Knights. Knight stopped him by grabbing his arm, but it was not forceful or hurtful, but was very much how you might grab the arm of someone you see at the bar or on the train, to get their attention. Knight corrected him, and the incident was done. If you've never met him, Bobby Knight is an incredibly intimidating person, even when he's being nice. In this incident, he was not. The story only changed when it was re-told by the student's step-father, who was a long-time Knight critic who Knight often mocked at press conferences. There was a long-standing feud between the two, and he jumped on the chance to crucify Knight. An administration that had a falling out with Knight, and with the emphasis placed on Indiana Basketball, saw an opportunity to railroad Robert Montgomery Knight out of town, and the Myles Brand-led coalition did just that, often using under-the-table measures and off-the-record meetings, both of which broke numerous state laws.

If you don't believe me, go back and read Brand's comments on the athletic situation at Indiana before it happened. I believe that his famous quote regarded the need to "turn down the emphasis on athletics." Doing so was his cause at the time, as he blamed such things for the slide of IU's academic programs and their rankings during his tenure as the University's president (nearly every program was top-20 nationally when he arrived -- comparatively few were still there by this time). He used the entire incident, and the next year's run to the championship game, under Mike Davis, to catapult himself into the spotlight, and through doing so he was able to gain his current position of NCAA president. His earlier quotes about the need to decrease emphasis on athletics are nothing but sweet irony now.

[CJ*]

Wrong.

You're only taking into measure one account of each incident.



I think the point of this is that at least Bobby Knight's side of the story was heard and documented. Artest has not yet been afforded such process.

[DietCokehead]

What if said chair had slipped and went into the stands instead of skidding across the floor towards the officials?

What if one of the monitors that Artest threw a while back had hit a fan? The fact of the matter is that it didn't.

Knight's famous chair did not hit a ref, either, and was not even all that close. He was just throwing it onto the floor.

It is not behavior that I support, but it's not the same as physically assaulting a fan and inciting a riot. Especially when the fan assaulted was an uninvolved bystander.

[DietCokehead]

I think the point of this is that at least Bobby Knight's side of the story was heard and documented. Artest has not yet been afforded such process.

It was not. That's the point.

Myles Brand broke many precedents in railroading Knight out of town. In fact, he broke a number of state laws in doing so.

Knight's side of the stories were only initially even reported, and they have not seen the light of day since.

Artest's actions were evident, in all of the splendor of network coverage, in crystal-clear video.

What if Knight had stormed into the bleachers when taunted by the fans at Northwestern during the "Hoosier Daddy" incident? Candy was thrown at him during that one, so it would have been similar. Instead, he brought candy to toss (gently -- there's even video) to them the next time the Hoosiers played in Evanston.

[jojo]

Wrong.

You're only taking into measure one account of each incident.

By essentially all accounts, Knight was not grabbing Neil Reed by the throat. He was grabbing him by the shoulders. Coaches, other players, and Knight all spoke to this. Reed contradicted him, and he did it long after the fact. Knight, while explosive, was not known to be physically abusive to his players. He disciplined them with additional exercise, similar to the line-running sentence handed to Andre Emmett when he arrived at Tech.

In the incident that resulted in his dismissal, the student and his brothers' statements match almost identically to Knights. Knight stopped him by grabbing his arm, but it was not forceful or hurtful, but was very much how you might grab the arm of someone you see at the bar or on the train, to get their attention. Knight corrected him, and the incident was done. If you've never met him, Bobby Knight is an incredibly intimidating person, even when he's being nice. In this incident, he was not. The story only changed when it was re-told by the student's step-father, who was a long-time Knight critic who Knight often mocked at press conferences. There was a long-standing feud between the two, and he jumped on the chance to crucify Knight. An administration that had a falling out with Knight, and with the emphasis placed on Indiana Basketball, saw an opportunity to railroad Robert Montgomery Knight out of town, and the Myles Brand-led coalition did just that, often using under-the-table measures and off-the-record meetings, both of which broke numerous state laws.

If you don't believe me, go back and read Brand's comments on the athletic situation at Indiana before it happened. I believe that his famous quote regarded the need to "turn down the emphasis on athletics." Doing so was his cause at the time, as he blamed such things for the slide of IU's academic programs and their rankings during his tenure as the University's president (nearly every program was top-20 nationally when he arrived -- comparatively few were still there by this time). He used the entire incident, and the next year's run to the championship game, under Mike Davis, to catapult himself into the spotlight, and through doing so he was able to gain his current position of NCAA president. His earlier quotes about the need to decrease emphasis on athletics are nothing but sweet irony now.

I know exactly what they say. And how do you come to that conclusion? You actually get both sides of the story. Everyone who knows Artest talks about how misunderstood he is. But you've thrown the book at him before an investigation. The point is that you would be up in arms if Knight got a suspension based on reputation and without an investigation into the facts. You would be screaming conspiracy if someone said that they suspsended him on a principle which has been violated numerous times in the league's history and gave him over seven times more games off than anyone else. And your cotrasting Artest grabbing the fan versus Knight grabbing a player by the throat is at best biased, at worst blind consent to his behavior.

Are you really going to sit here and say that you wouldn't?

[jojo]

I'm done on the matter, but you're clearly kidding yourself if you think that you'd call for the same penalties in Knight's case.

[DietCokehead]

I know exactly what they say. And how do you come to that conclusion? You actually get both sides of the story. Everyone who knows Artest talks about how misunderstood he is. But you've thrown the book at him before an investigation. The point is that you would be up in arms if Knight got a suspension based on reputation and without an investigation into the facts. You would be screaming conspiracy if someone said that they suspsended him on a principle which has been violated numerous times in the league's history and gave him over seven times more games off than anyone else. And your cotrasting Artest grabbing the fan versus Knight grabbing a player by the throat is at best biased, at worst blind consent to his behavior.

Are you really going to sit here and say that you wouldn't?

They did, and I did.

However, Ron Artest stormed into the stands and assaulted someone who was uninvolved. For whatever reasons, he did. He then proceeded to fight with numerous fans afterward. At least two other Pacers did, as well. The situation where they felt they needed to defend themselves or each other was a direct result of Artest's initial action, which was not even aimed at the person who started it all.

For all of his faults, Bobby Knight never was involved in a similar incident, and definitely not on national telelvision, with all the coverage in the world to analyze and see. Artest can appeal, even. His actions were captured.

Knight was railroaded out of town, on a punishment that had no fore-bearing. In fact, it was the opposite situation. Up until then, his actions had basically been tolerated, with little or no punishment. The chair-throw, the headbutt, cursing refs and the NCAA, causing scenes during and after games, the LSU fan in the trashcan, the "assault" on the man who was threatening his wife and mother-in-law at the Mexican restaurant... NONE of these actions, while similar or more serious than the final incident, garnered any sort of serious punishment from Indiana University. And, in all of them that were physical, it involved him and the obvious other party. IU set a precedent of non-action with Knight. There was no precedent with Artest, or really in the NBA at all, so this is a different argument altogether.

Knight's story, the little that was reported, came again to light much after the fact. Other than one or two local articles, how many had his side or the student's initial testimony? I'll tell you: none.

[GolfingAndy]

Check this shit out:

Actual cup thrown at Artest on EBay (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=50135&item=5142028292&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)

"Bravely, my friend and I fought through the random, wild haymakers being thrown by Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Fred Jones, the Pistons peanut vendor, Ben Wallace's brother, Jermaine O'Neal, the guy in the clown wig, the guy in the Wallace shirt and the nerdy kid who got attacked by Artest, to retrieve this magnificent piece of history."

[DietCokehead]

I'm done on the matter, but you're clearly kidding yourself if you think that you'd call for the same penalties in Knight's case.

I am a fan of Knight's, so I'm going to defend him more than most, just as hard-core Pacers' fans will defend their players.

However, I am indifferent about Artest, for the most part, and definitely about O'Neal (who I was a fan of) and Jackson. I do not hate any of them in any way, shape, or form. I am also not a Pistons fan or a Pacers hater.

Comparing my reaction about Knight to my reaction about Artest is comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make a point from my emotional response about Knight that my opinions on Artest are biased or unjustified, which is incorrect. My opinions on Knight are admittedly heavily biased, even with supporting stories/testimonies/facts/whatever, but I could give or take what happens to Ron Artest or the others, except how it affects the NBA on the whole. My favorite team doesn't even play in the East.

The opinions, and the process by which I formed them, are not one and the same, and you're well-aware of that. Apples and oranges.

[JoeyHustle]

Why don't you stop trying to enable these guys for their ridiculous behavior?

The root cause comes down to a generation of young players that are continually pampered and blown up their whole life, and then thrown into the real world, suddenly free of their protective ego-bubble. If you take a largely underpriveleged group of youth, tell them how great they are and raise them through high school and college ball not having to deal with any real consequences or decisions then you can expect no less.

I am not trying to make a blanket accusation that all NBA players are gangbangers, but the facts are there. Studies have shown up to 40% of them have criminal records, and there are obvious reasons why. These guys have never had to be accountable for real life decisions before and cannot be expected to behave like normal human beings when put in a spot where critical responsible thinking is needed.

If you would like to refute this, then tell me why this doesn't happen to the same degree in English soccer or hockey? Both have far more unruly fans. The whole "barrier of the field" bullshit won't fly, because that has been and can be broken in any sport at will. I don't seem to remember any problems like this (of this frequency, anyway) before the 90's, in any sport. All before that were isolated, on the field occurances.

As emplyees of the Pacers, Inc. and the NBA, they are required to behave in a manner that is professional. If I defended myself at work from another employee, I would be, as would any of you, be held to the same standards as if I started the fight.

The argument of self defense and the specifics of this occurance are moot. The enabling of this behavior and the culture that surrounds our current league make this almost inevitable. They are not required to be accountable for any of their actions for their whole life, so why would you expect this to be any different. The education ahs to begin somewhere, and these punishments will send that message.

[jojo]

Comparing my reaction about Knight to my reaction about Artest is comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make a point from my emotional response about Knight that my opinions on Artest are biased or unjustified, which is incorrect. My opinions on Knight are admittedly heavily biased, even with supporting stories/testimonies/facts/whatever, but I could give or take what happens to Ron Artest or the others, except how it affects the NBA on the whole. My favorite team doesn't even play in the East.

The opinions, and the process by which I formed them, are not one and the same, and you're well-aware of that. Apples and oranges.
It's not comparing apples and oranges at all. For one, the videotape showed you all you needed to know. For one, you want to actually hear what motivated him. For the other. you make an opinion on a tape with no other information. The point that many would make is that seeing a school administrator put his hands on a player in any such manner is grounds for dismissal. Your thought process is biased and you made a snap judgment. Knight's press conference was before he was fired. His side of the story was most certainly out.

Saying that you're indifferent towards one and willing to overlook precedent, but biased towards another proves nothing. Look at the initial question asked about Knight? The question was whether you would feel the same if it was him? You have attempted to turn this into an apples and oranges argument, but it's still the same as when it started. Why is it that people are understanding with some people, but their supposed principles cannot be shaken when it comes to Artest?

The point about Knight never really being punished is sheer bullshit. What was Artest's longest punishment before this?

The point about there not being precedent is sheer bullshit. Jerry Sloan and Vernon Maxwell have gone into the stands during sporting events. This has also happened at sporting events that were not NBA events a number of times. Some of which have already been listed.

[jojo]

Why don't you stop trying to enable these guys for their ridiculous behavior?

The argument of self defense and the specifics of this occurance are moot. The enabling of this behavior and the culture that surrounds our current league make this almost inevitable. They are not required to be accountable for any of their actions for their whole life, so why would you expect this to be any different. The education ahs to begin somewhere, and these punishments will send that message.
This is not about enabling these athletes. It's about changing standards with no rhyme or reason other than the so-called gang banger bullshit that you just put out there.

Who is a banger in the league? Name them, since you are so willing to throw that label out there. Would you be feeding this same enabling bullshit if it was John Stockton in the stands?

[GolfingAndy]

Who is a banger in the league? Name them, since you are so willing to throw that label out there. Would you be feeding this same enabling bullshit if it was John Stockton in the stands?

So do you think this rush to judgement is racially or culturally motivated? You used Stockton as an example, but what about Jason Williams of the Grizzlies?

[JoeyHustle]

This is not about enabling these athletes. It's about changing standards with no rhyme or reason other than the so-called gang banger bullshit that you just put out there.

Who is a banger in the league? Name them, since you are so willing to throw that label out there. Would you be feeding this same enabling bullshit if it was John Stockton in the stands?

Yes, I honestly would be saying the same thing, even if it was Pistol Pete. I don't mean to sound like I am focusing my statement on these guys all being criminals. But the fact is that there is a higher instance of criminal records in the NBA:

"Forty percent of NBA players have criminal records, according to
Jeff Benedict, author of Out of Bounds: Inside the NBA's Culture of
Rape, Violence & Crime . . .
Jeff Benedict checked the backgrounds of 177 players from the 2001-
2002 season and found 40% of them had been arrested for crimes
ranging from rape to armed robbery to domestic violence. While Kobe
Bryant was on trial, writes Benedict, "25 law enforcement agencies
in 13 cities in the United States and Canada were simultaneously
proceeding with arrest warrants, indictments, plea-agreement
proceedings or trials involving more than a dozen other players." He
found 33 criminal charges of domestic violence against NBA-ers. "For
many players, encounters with law-enforcement officials represent
the rare instance of someone telling them no," writes Benedict. "

I firmly believe that this is a result of these men being brought up in a culture free of consequences, responsibility or any other tenet of personal character. When you tell someone they are invincible and great enough times, they WILL believe it and they will act on those beliefs. This is an example. There was limited action here in self-defense, this was a desire to fight, and fight viciously, and with no regard to personal or professional consequences.

Yu may call it changing standards if you want to, but I call it a reality check for a group of people who have been shuttled far out of normal behavior because of the way they are treated. This is EXACTLY what they need.

[DietCokehead]

It's not comparing apples and oranges at all. For one, the videotape showed you all you needed to know. For one, you want to actually hear what motivated him. For the other. you make an opinion on a tape with no other information. The point that many would make is that seeing a school administrator put his hands on a player in any such manner is grounds for dismissal. Your thought process is biased and you made a snap judgment. Knight's press conference was before he was fired. His side of the story was most certainly out.
It was not. Knight was already done in the eyes of the administration before that. He, Brand, and the AD's office were already at an end.

Saying that you're indifferent towards one and willing to overlook precedent, but biased towards another proves nothing. Look at the initial question asked about Knight? The question was whether you would feel the same if it was him? You have attempted to turn this into an apples and oranges argument, but it's still the same as when it started. Why is it that people are understanding with some people, but their supposed principles cannot be shaken when it comes to Artest?
I am admittedly biased toward Knight. I am positive that I would feel differently, just as Pacers fans feel differently. A more valid question would be how would I feel if it was Pitino or Roy Williams. I am no more objective in my reaction to Knight than a hardcore Indy fan is toward Artest.

You have taken Artest's side, here, and you are now unshakeable in your support. You are every bit as biased toward him as I am toward Knight.

The point about Knight never really being punished is sheer bullshit. What was Artest's longest punishment before this?
Knight had similar outburst and actions to those that supposedly led to his dismissal prior to it, with little to no action taken by the University. What were Artest's comparable actions prior to this?

The point about there not being precedent is sheer bullshit. Jerry Sloan and Vernon Maxwell have gone into the stands during sporting events. This has also happened at sporting events that were not NBA events a number of times. Some of which have already been listed.
How many of those resulted in the fall-out that happened here? In those, how many times did the player, joined by other players, assault numerous fans after the initial altercation, especially when it involved an innocent or uninvolved party? Spre was the most recent violent and harmful NBA outburst, and his earned him a similar penalty. In baseball's most recent incident, the Rangers pitcher was done for the year and faces criminal charges.

You are looking at this no more objectively, at this point, than I am the Knight proceedings, possibly even less so as I'm sure not everything has been made available in this case that will be for retrospective analysis. I did make a snap judgement, initially, with Knight, but I can now support my stance with a retrospective look at the situation. I was enraged then, but now I can make reasonable arguments, based on a wholly inclusive look at the situation, which coincidentally supports my initial reaction, by my judgement. Such is not always the case, though I think it was in that particular incident, even though I think that it worked out best for Knight that he left. That sort of a 20/20 look is not yet possible, here.

Just as you are most likely better informed on this matter and the NBA, I am in regard to Knight and his dismissal. I was on campus, involved, and had sources in the press, Knight's office, the Athletic Department, and in the President's office, as well as access to and the desire to access a wider array of media sources.

I am not looking to pick a fight, but I am not fueled by a bias against Artest. He is a player who I enjoyed watching play, so long as it wasn't against my team. The Pistons, coincidentally, are not my team -- the Mavericks are.

Is it not telling that so many former players are chiming in that he was being "disrespected" and that was enough to justify this behavior? That is the number one defense for his actions, with the claim that such a feeling for a need to not be "disrespected" is a part of the young, black community, especially as it relates to the rap community and the NBA (not my comparison -- it's been all over ESPN). However, if you listen to other players, coaches, or whoever that found his behavior abhorrant, they cite players such as Bill Russell, who was attacked, spit on, and legitimately discriminated against, but who did not act out.

Yet, in today's game, everyone from Barkley, to Mark Jackson, to whoever say that it was a need to not be "disrespected," rather than a threatened sense of safety that drove him. How can you defend such a mentality? I honestly don't know what drove him to do what he did. However, I do know what happened because of it.

For that, he should be punished, and he is being punished, as are the others involved.

[jojo]

Yu may call it changing standards if you want to, but I call it a reality check for a group of people who have been shuttled far out of normal behavior because of the way they are treated. This is EXACTLY what they need.
I don't buy that you or most people would say the same thing if it was John Stockton, Tim Duncan, Grant Hill, or any number of other players. Just don't believe that at all. Just look at most of the arguments being advanced in favor of such a penalty. The principles that are so important and call for this penalty have been violated time and time again, and nowhere near these suspensions were imposed.

You really think that this penalty would be necessary to bring any of those players in touch with reality? You really don't think that prior penalties would guide Stern in those situations?


And now we get to the fun part. Just who is Ron Artest's employer? The Pacers fully support Artest and are working with the union to reduce the suspensions. If the league is his employer, then you're brewing up an antitrust shitstorm. Choose your poison on all of these issues, because your principles won't stand up to the scrutiny of comparison.

Not buying at all.

[GolfingAndy]

Here's a link to an article in USA Today about the relationship between fans and athletes: LINK (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-11-22-fans-cover_x.htm)

I may not agree with everything he says, but he does make some good points.

[D-Rock]

So do you think this rush to judgement is racially or culturally motivated? You used Stockton as an example, but what about Jason Williams of the Grizzlies?

That frist question is for jojo to answer. I think Williams is probably the best we can do on as a control. There are two questions to be asked here:

If you are advocating Artest's sentence would you conitnue to advocate such a sentence for another player with a comparable record who was white (actually who wasn't black)?

The more germaine question is whether you think Stern would have punished another player with a "checkered past" as harshly as he did Artest? Especially if that player were white?

[Shock]

Only you assholes could take what amounts to a street fight and turn it into an exposé on the sociology of deviant behavior.

[narcissistic1]

Only you assholes could take what amounts to a street fight and turn it into an exposé on the sociology of deviant behavior.

Yes, only these assholes, and every major sportswriter in America.

[jojo]

Let's take the highlights, shall we?


You have taken Artest's side, here, and you are now unshakeable in your support. You are every bit as biased toward him as I am toward Knight.

Show me where. All I've said is that others haven't actually given him a fair shake. Show me exactly how I've taken his side, other than to say that penalizing him differently than others is hypocritical. I'll save you the time of looking, because you won't find it.



How many of those resulted in the fall-out that happened here? In those, how many times did the player, joined by other players, assault numerous fans after the initial altercation, especially when it involved an innocent or uninvolved party? Spre was the most recent violent and harmful NBA outburst, and his earned him a similar penalty. In baseball's most recent incident, the Rangers pitcher was done for the year and faces criminal charges.

The 2000 incident in Wrigley did. The Red Sox and Yankees did.

And you want to talk about apples and oranges? Spree left the building for OVER AN HOUR, came back and went after his coach. The league suspended based on this and his similar incident where he was kicked out of practice, cooled down, and came back with a 2x4 after a teammate. This cooling down period was actually part of the arbitrator's decision of 68 games.


You are looking at this no more objectively, at this point, than I am the Knight proceedings, possibly even less so as I'm sure not everything has been made available in this case that will be for retrospective analysis. I did make a snap judgement, initially, with Knight, but I can now support my stance with a retrospective look at the situation. I was enraged then, but now I can make reasonable arguments, based on a wholly inclusive look at the situation, which coincidentally supports my initial reaction, by my judgement. Such is not always the case, though I think it was in that particular incident, even though I think that it worked out best for Knight that he left. That sort of a 20/20 look is not yet possible, here.

Just as you are most likely better informed on this matter and the NBA, I am in regard to Knight and his dismissal. I was on campus, involved, and had sources in the press, Knight's office, the Athletic Department, and in the President's office, as well as access to and the desire to access a wider array of media sources.

I am not looking to pick a fight, but I am not fueled by a bias against Artest. He is a player who I enjoyed watching play, so long as it wasn't against my team. The Pistons, coincidentally, are not my team -- the Mavericks are.

Again, what judgment have I jumped to? That's complete and utter nonsense. You and others have said that this is warranted, despite not having this information. I have said nothing of the sort.


Is it not telling that so many former players are chiming in that he was being "disrespected" and that was enough to justify this behavior? That is the number one defense for his actions, with the claim that such a feeling for a need to not be "disrespected" is a part of the young, black community, especially as it relates to the rap community and the NBA (not my comparison -- it's been all over ESPN). However, if you listen to other players, coaches, or whoever that found his behavior abhorrant, they cite players such as Bill Russell, who was attacked, spit on, and legitimately discriminated against, but who did not act out.
I've heard just as many players defending his behavior, not because of the diserspected nonsense, but because of the fear that comes when you let someone throw something at a player in that situation. Shaq, Barkley, Jarron Collins, and even Jerry Sloan come to mind off the top of my head. And Greg Anthony and Tim Legler before they flipped.

You've assumed that I've taken Artest's side, and with no evidence to back your point up. All along, my point has been that there need to be standards that are uniformly applied in situations like these, instead of a rush to judgment without seeing how reasonable his actions actually were.

[jojo]

That frist question is for jojo to answer. I think Williams is probably the best we can do on as a control. There are two questions to be asked here:

If you are advocating Artest's sentence would you conitnue to advocate such a sentence for another player with a comparable record who was white (actually who wasn't black)?

The more germaine question is whether you think Stern would have punished another player with a "checkered past" as harshly as he did Artest? Especially if that player were white?
I'm not sure about the answer to any of these. All I know is that you have room for these questions to be asked in the first place when you handle things in the manner in which Stern dealt with this.

I'm as big an NBA fan as you'll find, and I'm more disgusted by this precedent from Stern than anything else. A number of his decisions over the years (suspensions in the Heat-Knicks playoff series a few years back comes to mind) make me question his objectivity. I certainly don't think that he was in this case, or in dealing with Rasheed or Rodman over the years. If it makes me consider turning my attention to college ball more, it's pretty bad.

[GolfingAndy]

The more germaine question is whether you think Stern would have punished another player with a "checkered past" as harshly as he did Artest? Especially if that player were white?

Using Williams as an example, here is his rap sheet:

NBA Fines and Suspensions (http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/fines.html#00-01)

4/16/01
The NBA fined Jason Williams (Sac) $25,000 for inappropriate conduct
towards the fans during Thursday's Sac-SA game.

3/13/01
The NBA fined Jason Williams (Sac) $10,000 for directing profanity at the
fans during Wednesday's Sac-GS game.

12/1/00
The NBA fined Jason Williams (Sac) $10,000 for cursing and using obscene
gestures towards fans after Wednesday's Sac-SA game.

7/20/00
The NBA suspended Jason Williams (Sac) for the first 5 games of the
2000-01 season for not complying with his treatment obligations under
the league's anti-drug program. The NBA does not release details of
violations of the anti-drug program.

Lots of incidents with fans, with pretty minor penalties. Of course none of this is as serious as going into the stands and waylaying someone, but perhaps a precedent of stiffer penalties should have been set earlier than this week.

[JoeyHustle]

Not buying at all.

You don't have to buy it. The fact is that yes, I would do the same thing to any player who did this, even if the Virgin Fucking Mary laced up her shoes and had a killer J. But I admit that I am in the minority.

You can't honestly think that the way these guys are brought up has nothing to do with this. The semantics of who these players work for is irrelevant, it only serves to show their lack of professional responsibility. The true problem is their lack of understanding of any form of normal reality or behavior.

I think this is exactly what Stern needed to do to check these guys back into the real world. Your talk of past punishments isn't really valid here, because there will come a point with any problem when it becomes apparent that has become worse and greater measures are needed to prevent it. I look at this as stopping a probelm before it starts. This penatly is harsh, but I am willing to put money on the fact that it will never happen again. Not even in the same ballpark as this extent. When your players are out of control, extreme measures must be implemented to check them.

These players, and many others, ARE out of control. The problem of accusing them prior to actually doing anything wrong is somewhat of a problem, but it is an acceptable one if it prevents this and teaches these children some form of responsibility and professionalism.

[jojo]

These players, and many others, ARE out of control. The problem of accusing them prior to actually doing anything wrong is somewhat of a problem, but it is an acceptable one if it prevents this and teaches these children some form of responsibility and professionalism.
And you've come to the conslusion that they are out of control how?

The past precedent doesn't matter, huh? Do you know anything about Vernon Maxwell?

And you're willing to punish severly based on your perception that these players are out of control, so how do you deal with players you believe to be under control in similar circumstances? You would do suspend everyone now, but what about when the players in the leage lived a lifestyle that was more to your liking? Still these punishments, or do ease up then? You're making judgments on the way that these players live their lives which you are not qualified or justified in making.

[GolfingAndy]

NBA Fines and Suspensions for incidents with fans:Detroit News (http://www.detnews.com/2004/pistons/0411/22/f07-12431.htm)

Artest is the only one who has recieved a suspension for an obscene gesture, and of course the Maxwell incident for going into the stands.

[DietCokehead]

I'm as big an NBA fan as you'll find, and I'm more disgusted by this precedent from Stern than anything else.

This is the most shocking statement I've seen, out of all of your posts.

In all that happened, how is Stern's punishment the most disgusting? Moreso than Stephen Jackson climbing into the stands, when he was not involved at all? More than Jermain O'Neal swinging on a person he was clearly the physical superior to?

While I don't agree, I can understand being troubled by Artest's suspension, especially when Jackson's was so much lighter, but I cannot believe that Stern's decision on punishment is the most disgusting.

There is no equivalent precedent in the NBA. There is little in professional sprots. When was the last time there was a player-incited riot because of a thrown beer?

My question is this: Do you agree or disagree with Barkley, Jackson, and the others who spoke of the importance of "not being disrespected"?

If not, do you think that such an attitude is prevalent in the NBA, or in other leagues? Do you think that such an attitude is unique to players who come of age in troubling or urban environments? Is it race-related? Do you feel that Artest is being discriminated against because of his race, because of his track record, or even at all?

What driving force behind the action would be defensible? What would not? How do you govern fan behavior? How do you think this situation can be prevented in the future?

Since you have not given a stance, I would like to know what yours is.

[D-Rock]

I'm not sure about the answer to any of these. All I know is that you have room for these questions to be asked in the first place when you handle things in the manner in which Stern dealt with this.

Here is the (only) way I can explain Stern's decision re:Artest. He honestly viewed Artest going into the stands first as roughly comparable to Jackson beaahaving significantly more violently both on the court and in the stands. I think that's poppycock to begin with. Buying that rather specious argument you then have to make a leap of logic that Artest's past allows for Stern to punish him an additional 25-35 games on top of what he gave Jackson. I find both halves of that untenable.

I'm as big an NBA fan as you'll find, and I'm more disgusted by this precedent from Stern than anything else. A number of his decisions over the years (suspensions in the Heat-Knicks playoff series a few years back comes to mind) make me question his objectivity. I certainly don't think that he was in this case, or in dealing with Rasheed or Rodman over the years. If it makes me consider turning my attention to college ball more, it's pretty bad

I'll never do that just because I can't stand the notion of watching a game that's at its best an order of magnitude worse than an NBA game. You're the lawyer, so let me ask you a question: Reading the CBA it seems that the NBAPA ceded all authority to the NBA commisioner for discipling on-court instances including sole authority to hear the appeal. Am I missing something?

[JoeyHustle]

And you've come to the conslusion that they are out of control how?

The past precedent doesn't matter, huh? Do you know anything about Vernon Maxwell?

And you're willing to punish severly based on your perception that these players are out of control, so how do you deal with players you believe to be under control in similar circumstances? You would do suspend everyone now, but what about when the players in the leage lived a lifestyle that was more to your liking? Still these punishments, or do ease up then? You're making judgments on the way that these players live their lives which you are not qualified or justified in making.

Yes, I know quite a bit about Vernon Maxwell. He lived about 2 miles from me when I was in high school. Vernon Maxwell is in jail in Florida, bankrupt right now.

Sure, his punishments (for various problems) weren't as severe, but perhaps it wasn't indicative then of a larger problem facing the league. If you want to boil it down, let's just go right to the image card. Players in the NBA have an increasingly thug image. The NBA relies on its image to succeed. That image is being tarnished by the increasing rate of these instances.

The league used to be able to separate itself from these instances because they were confined to individuals. Here, althought it is obviously NOT the team's fault, it is very difficult for the league not to be associated with this fight directly, because it was nearly a whole team. Sure, it wasn't all of them, but this is about image, and that is harder to separate.

You continuing to deny the bigger problem of a generation of players with no grasp on responsibility is what allows this kind of thing to flourish. You enable and commercially support this image, and the league is at a loss to present an alternative image. Maybe you can look at this as the league taking their image out of the hands of a few players, and back into their own.

You're the one with the law database access, start looking up players and YOU tell me if there isn't a large number of criminals. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck . . .

[mrjake]

Here's an interesting tidbit that may or may not have effected this.

During the Monday Night Football game on the 15th one of the commentators went on for five minutes about the NFL's lucrative contract with the networks and how it was earned because the NFL didn't put up with the "crap they put up with in the NBA."

[jojo]

There is no equivalent precedent in the NBA. There is little in professional sprots. When was the last time there was a player-incited riot because of a thrown beer?This is just nonsense. If you only want to look at results, then why did LJ and Zo get suspended for their fight when no punches were landed. Jalen Rose and Pat Ewing? Sure, you can increase the severity of the penalties for the riot, but it's nowhere near worthy of 7 times Vernon Maxwell's incident.


My question is this: Do you agree or disagree with Barkley, Jackson, and the others who spoke of the importance of "not being disrespected"?

Complete and utter nonsense from them and contrary to what Artest has said himself. It's a copout way to describe young black society based on shootings 10-15 years ago over Jordans and Starter Jackets.


If not, do you think that such an attitude is prevalent in the NBA, or in other leagues? Do you think that such an attitude is unique to players who come of age in troubling or urban environments? Is it race-related? Do you feel that Artest is being discriminated against because of his race, because of his track record, or even at all?

I don't really think it's that prevalent. I think that nobody wants to be disrespected, but it's not the motivating factor it's made out to be.


What driving force behind the action would be defensible? What would not? How do you govern fan behavior? How do you think this situation can be prevented in the future?

Enforce the damn rules on fans. Pay attention and kick them out before something like this happens. Have more security behind the bench. Negotiate this sort of thing into the next CBA. And at the end of the day, punish based on the incident and not some bullshit supposed principles which you won't enforce evenly.


Since you have not given a stance, I would like to know what yours is.
Based on the information that I have (and I would want much more than this before coming ot any conclusions:

Probably about 30-35 games for Artest, because his actions were beyond the line set by Maxwell and punishment has always been handled by the league in an escalating fashion.
5 more games than that for SJ because he clearly went into the stands with an intent to injure, which I did not see in Artest.
I don't even know what the other incident was with JO, so I can't say.

1 or 2 games for Ben Wallace. The push was bad and at the root of all this, but there was no way he could have known what it would lead to that mess.

[Chandler]

Here is an article by Jason Whitlock (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/columnists/jason_whitlock/10242339.htm?1c) that makes the point, in a much better way that I ever could, the point I was making about the root cause of this fight and the NBA culture in general. This column is very good, but sure to be very controversial.

[jojo]

Here is the (only) way I can explain Stern's decision re:Artest. He honestly viewed Artest going into the stands first as roughly comparable to Jackson beaahaving significantly more violently both on the court and in the stands. I think that's poppycock to begin with. Buying that rather specious argument you then have to make a leap of logic that Artest's past allows for Stern to punish him an additional 25-35 games on top of what he gave Jackson. I find both halves of that untenable.

Agreed.


I'll never do that just because I can't stand the notion of watching a game that's at its best an order of magnitude worse than an NBA game. You're the lawyer, so let me ask you a question: Reading the CBA it seems that the NBAPA ceded all authority to the NBA commisioner for discipling on-court instances including sole authority to hear the appeal. Am I missing something?
I doubt if I can do that. The fact that I would consider it is bad enough.
The NBPA shat the bed with most of the contract; what's one more provision?

[jojo]

Sure, his punishments (for various problems) weren't as severe, but perhaps it wasn't indicative then of a larger problem facing the league. If you want to boil it down, let's just go right to the image card. Players in the NBA have an increasingly thug image. The NBA relies on its image to succeed. That image is being tarnished by the increasing rate of these instances.

The league used to be able to separate itself from these instances because they were confined to individuals. Here, althought it is obviously NOT the team's fault, it is very difficult for the league not to be associated with this fight directly, because it was nearly a whole team. Sure, it wasn't all of them, but this is about image, and that is harder to separate.

You continuing to deny the bigger problem of a generation of players with no grasp on responsibility is what allows this kind of thing to flourish. You enable and commercially support this image, and the league is at a loss to present an alternative image. Maybe you can look at this as the league taking their image out of the hands of a few players, and back into their own.

You're the one with the law database access, start looking up players and YOU tell me if their isn't a large number of criminals. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck . . .
Bullshit. There were more of these incidents in the 70s, 80s and 90s than today. Look up the numbers.

As for the rest of this nonsense, it's just that. This bullshit thug imagery is no worse than it was at any point in the last 25 years. What this amounts to is a bullshit excuse for hating young millionaires. There were rules, they were broken, punish them for it accordingly. Don't bring the saving the league's image garbage into it. It's nonsense and not historically accurate.

[JoeyHustle]

Bullshit. There were more of these incidents in the 70s, 80s and 90s than today. Look up the numbers.

As for the rest of this nonsense, it's just that. This bullshit thug imagery is no worse than it was at any point in the last 25 years. What this amounts to is a bullshit excuse for hating young millionaires. There were rules, they were broken, punish them for it accordingly. Don't bring the saving the league's image garbage into it. It's nonsense and not historically accurate.

OK. You go ahead and believe that. Then poll a major metropolitan area and ask them if their image of NBA players leans toward model citizen or thug. You will be wrong, and I have no doubt of it. Hell, just poll this board and I bet you find the same thing. No qualifiers, just general image, which is all the money-making capability of a sports league depends on. Thuggish ruggish ballers.

Please . . . hating young millionaires? This is not a Master P song. This is business and it is indicative of social attitudes among young athletes in general.

Face it, we are never going to arrive at an agreement. I see the larger social problem, you see the repressed athlete. No intersection.

[DietCokehead]

As for the rest of this nonsense, it's just that. This bullshit thug imagery is no worse than it was at any point in the last 25 years. What this amounts to is a bullshit excuse for hating young millionaires. There were rules, they were broken, punish them for it accordingly. Don't bring the saving the league's image garbage into it. It's nonsense and not historically accurate.

The key is that many of these players are not just young millionaires, they're child millionaires. While this is not an out-and-out excuse for the accusations, it is closer to reality now that in previous times. Never before, in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or even most of the 90s were there the number of high school or early college declarations for the draft.

Many of these boys, and I feel comfortable using that term on those younger than me, are not ready to deal with all of those pressures. They are immature, though many find sound advice and counselors to help them along. However, many do not.

I am not going to go out on a limb and claim that the reason for this incident, but it has become a reality in the NBA. No longer is it a league of only men. How many players are there who are not even considered mature enough to buy a six-pack of beer, let alone handle the pressures of a highly competitive, scrutinized, and pressure-filled life in the NBA's spotlight?

The league has changed, just as it has many times before. This "thug mentality" is nothing new, but I do believe that, to some extent, it has become more prevalent, though nowhere near the sensationalized media claims it to be. It is, however, not just bullshit.

[jojo]

OK. You go ahead and believe that. Then poll a major metropolitan area and ask them if their image of NBA players leans toward model citizen or thug. You will be wrong, and I have no doubt of it. Hell, just poll this board and I bet you find the same thing. No qualifiers, just general image, which is all the money-making capability of a sports league depends on. Thuggish ruggish ballers.

Please . . . hating young millionaires? This is not a Master P song. This is business and it is indicative of social attitudes among young athletes in general.

Face it, we are never going to arrive at an agreement. I see the larger social problem, you see the repressed athlete. No intersection.
You're so full of shit, it's not even funny. Stick with the conversation. The statement made was that the image of NBA players as thugs is no worse than it has been in the past, not that they aren't looked at in that way. Don't try to twist my shit.

And that's right, young millionaires. Do some research on the history of NBA salaries. Money and age are the only major differences between today's athletes and those from years past. Do the research instead of popping off with uninformed opinions.

Lastly, who said anything about a repressed athlete? Read what the fuck I've been writing. I'll put it in slow motion for you:

U
Ni
Form
I
Ty

[jojo]

The league has changed, just as it has many times before. This "thug mentality" is nothing new, but I do believe that, to some extent, it has become more prevalent, though nowhere near the sensationalized media claims it to be. It is, however, not just bullshit.
Do the research about when six teams almost went under because of the image of the players in 82 or 83, then we can talk.

Hell, I'll provide the first step. (http://www.askmen.com/men/business_politics/50b_david_stern.html)

And this (http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nba/comish/stern.html).

[DietCokehead]

Do the research about when six teams almost went under because of the image of the players in 82 or 83, then we can talk.

Hell, I'll provide the first step. (http://www.askmen.com/men/business_politics/50b_david_stern.html)

I'm aware. The difference today is that this persona is accepted and almost desired (for instance, AI sells more shoes than anyone because of his "street cred"). The fact that it's being instilled in men who are little beyond childhood is a dangerous thing.

I'm not saying that today's game is better or worse, just that it's different. Also, the Blazers are a team that has recently seen the backlash of having a long-term negative image. Why else would they let so many talented players go for relatively little in return, other than "good citizen" type players?

[IndyDave]

I know this is off-topic, but the Pacers just owned Boston, 106-96. They lead for most of the 2nd half. Boston rallied and took a brief lead, and you thought the magic was gone, but the Pacers never caved.

James Jones, a little-known player who played (I think) in 7 games last year, all mop-up, scored 22 points and pulled 10 boards. Against Orlando he was 12 and 12.

I know it is one game, but those of you who think the Pacers are done this year might think again. In the east, if you are .500 you are probably making the playoffs.

Edit: Several players were wearing Jackson and O'Neal arm bands. I wonder if this is a sign the team is displeased with Artest?

[jojo]

I'm aware. The difference today is that this persona is accepted and almost desired (for instance, AI sells more shoes than anyone because of his "street cred"). The fact that it's being instilled in men who are little beyond childhood is a dangerous thing.

I'm not saying that today's game is better or worse, just that it's different. Also, the Blazers are a team that has recently seen the backlash of having a long-term negative image. Why else would they let so many talented players go for relatively little in return, other than "good citizen" type players?
How is this thug imagery more prevalent than it was when all the pros were playing in the Rucker?

It's NOT. Ask cats who followed the league back then. It's simply not. Either way, if there was a time for Stern to be tough, it would have been in 1984. Maybe even incidents in 1994 whren So why all the justifications for his actions now?

The Blazers: who did they give up for too much?

[jojo]

What the fuck is a thug anyway?