Forums

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Maybe, maybe not. California law makes recording a private conversation without consent a crime. Under the statute, the recording is not admissible in any action (other than in prosecution of the person who recorded it).

Would an arbitrator enforce that evidentiary rule? The answer is, maybe, maybe not. Some arbitrators enforce the rules of evidence, some do not (by this, I mean what the arbitrators actually intend to do; like judges, some intend to enforce the rules but do a crappy job. But many acknowledge expressly that they aren't bound by the rules of evidence and won't sustain evidentiary objections unless they go to the reliability of the evidence -- which means, they would let the recording in.)

If I'm representing Sterling, I argue that the league is using the fruits of a criminal act to take action against me, and that the arbitrator cannot and should not consider the evidence that is central to the league's defense -- the recording. If I'm the NBA, I argue that the arbitrator isn't bound by those rules, but more centrally I argue that it wasn't the recording per se, but the shit-storm (I would probably use lawyer-words for that term) that erupted from that recording -- tied to past conduct -- that was damaging the league.

Overall, I like the league's chances on this . Even if the arbitrator enforces the evidentiary rule, the lifetime ban should stick as within the league's discretion to protect itself and its members, the compelled sale should stick for the same reason and because the owners (presumably) will vote that way. The fine is more questionable but far less important.

I say all this without knowing what the league's by-laws actually say, which is obviously important. AKA talking out of my ass, for which I usually charge.

Overall, it's a big risk, because if the arb goes Sterling's way his damage includes the decrease in value to the franchise that a compelled sale entails. Definitely not a slam-dunk (npi) for the NBA, and risk is what causes cases to settle.

Of course, there's nothing like a protracted dispute to keep the press well-fed on this. Arbitration is going to be a lot less public than a court case, but there is a premium on this going away fast. That premium may be Sterling's leverage. After all, what he really seems to want is a forum for trolling for young celebrity-obsessed women in LA, and there has to be some alternative they can find for him. Maybe let him get together with Mel Gibson and open a nightclub across the street from the stadium?