12/21/24
November 23, 2004
Artest Calls Season Suspension Too Harsh: INDIANAPOLIS - Indiana Pacers (news) forward Ron Artest said Tuesday he wishes he hadn't gotten into a fight with fans but feels his season-ending suspension was too harsh. I don't think it was fair — that many games," Artest said in an interview with NBC's "Today" show. "I respect (NBA Commissioner) David Stern's decisions, but I don't think I should have been out for the whole season."
posted by LROD to basketball at 10:31 AM - 40 comments
I think it was a very tough decision for the NBA commissioner Howard Stern, I mean David Stern to suspend a player for the whole season but probably he took into consideration the fragrant fouls, the bully behavior and the fact that Ron Artest wanted some time off to promote his group Allure go platinum, or in all likelihood he thinks like given the rest of the NBA players a second conception on wanting time off. What do you guys think? .
posted by LROD at 10:49 AM on November 23, 2004
Artest Suspension: Repeat offender. Crossed the line. Set an example. Name your scolding cliche. See also Todd Bertuzzi.
posted by garfield at 11:16 AM on November 23, 2004
Rick Barry said last night that Artest's suspension would be unwarranted if this was a first-time thing. But Artest is a repeat offender, in that he's been in trouble with the league before. And if you compare it to a court of law, the repeat offender always get harsher punishments...and I wholeheartedly agree. time to stop coddling and start punishing players (and people in general) for their actions...
posted by MeatSaber at 11:35 AM on November 23, 2004
on preview, what garfiled said... =D
posted by MeatSaber at 11:35 AM on November 23, 2004
I agree, fans should also be responsible for their actions.
posted by LROD at 11:57 AM on November 23, 2004
I think it was too harsh, relative to suspensions received by other players with blotches on their permanent records, such as Dennis Rodman kicking a cameraman in the nuts (10 games) or Vernon Maxwell beating the everloving jebus out of a fan (10 games). 72 games is awfully high, even for Artest. I preferred the original proposal of 30 games. The reason this one is so high is that the aftermath of Artest's charge into the stands reflects much worse on the NBA than the other incidents.
posted by Succa at 12:23 PM on November 23, 2004
Artest has been a "bad boy" before. He has been through "anger Management" and still seems pissed at the world! He got what he deserves. The fans who were involved should be given the same consideration. It appears that the one dude has a long record and by law shouldnt have been drinking--He should have the book thrown at him. In some states (being a three tiem DUI guy with the added offences) he would be getting some lengthy jail time...
posted by daddisamm at 12:23 PM on November 23, 2004
I think more fragrant fouls are just the thing to sell courtside seats again.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:48 PM on November 23, 2004
Top fan confrontations (SI via Boingboing.net)
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:49 PM on November 23, 2004
When I first saw the clip of the incident on Saturday morning, I originally thought that Artest should be banned from the NBA. Under no circumstances can that type of behavior be allowed. It's uncivilized, distracting to the sport, and extremely dangerous. The situation could easily have escalated to the point where someone was killed. If that happened, Artest would be looking at prison time, not a suspension. Seventy-two games is not too harsh.
posted by sixpacker at 01:26 PM on November 23, 2004
It's uncivilized Unlike the rest of sport.
posted by yerfatma at 01:43 PM on November 23, 2004
For some reason I sence that yerfatma does not like basketball...
posted by LROD at 02:22 PM on November 23, 2004
Huh? My point was there are plenty of uncivilized things built right into sports (special teams in football is not ballet). Got no problem with basketball. "CHILL OUT JEFFERSON AIRPLANE, IT'S NOT LIKE A KENNEDY GOT SHOT"
posted by yerfatma at 02:26 PM on November 23, 2004
Ron Artest was using # 91 because of Dennis Rodman uh... Maybe that had something to do with it, talking about bad boy.
posted by LROD at 02:55 PM on November 23, 2004
Eh?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 03:00 PM on November 23, 2004
"CHILL OUT JEFFERSON AIRPLANE, IT'S NOT LIKE A KENNEDY GOT SHOT" Oh god. That's comedy gold, right there...
posted by grum@work at 03:04 PM on November 23, 2004
I don't think a season-long ban is too harsh. The NBA needs to make an example out of Artest to ensure that no player goes into the stands again to fight fans, and the best way to do that is to give him a record-breaking timeout. As obnoxious as he behaved Friday night, I feel somewhat sorry for the guy -- that's an expensive cup of beer. But even without this season, he'll still start next year 25 years old and one of the best players in the league. Maybe it will end up being a wake-up call for the guy, who is too good to be known best as an off-court hothead.
posted by rcade at 03:34 PM on November 23, 2004
The NBA needs to make an example out of Artest And anyone else up for their 9th suspension.
posted by yerfatma at 03:59 PM on November 23, 2004
You know what rcade, I take it back, I'm not sorry I clowned you last night. Here are the 2 things you need to know about how rcade thinks. 1. When one of the Nebraska womens' soccer players got shot to death at a post-game party rcade said *goes to show you nothing good happens at 2 in the morning* Ha ha. 2. Last night he didn't like his *putdown* enough (in response to being made fun of) ... so he used his position as an administrator of this site to pull down the first comeback so he could put up a new and improved comeback. Just plain pathetic. Here's to you rcade. May you have a bottle thrown in your face one day. May you make a mistake in judgement. And may you be made an *example of*.
posted by Mike McD at 04:15 PM on November 23, 2004
it wasn't much of an apology, fwiw.
posted by garfield at 04:22 PM on November 23, 2004
There's a lot of heat on that one...
posted by LROD at 04:26 PM on November 23, 2004
Wow, who's being the punctilious pusillanimous sissy now?
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:27 PM on November 23, 2004
Oh Mike. You so crazy. And petty. Suspension warranted. On all levels. Of course Artest thinks it's severe. He's never thought anything he's done is without total justification. The NBA is absolutely looking out for the best interests of the league and I agree entirely.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:28 PM on November 23, 2004
Mike: I'm sorry that a couple of minutes after I posted it, I deleted my own comment accusing you of having difficulty using a thesaurus because you were wedged so far up Ron Artest's ass. On my account, every comment here has a big blue X next to it. One click and my errors in judgment disappear as quickly as the dollar bills you pilfer from Salvation Army drums at Christmastime to line the garter belts of gap-toothed strippers. In the future, I will make sure to insult you with more permanence. I hope you can accept this apology in the spirit in which it was offered.
posted by rcade at 04:29 PM on November 23, 2004
Oh god, this Artest thing is really getting out of hands on and off the court and in both ends.
posted by LROD at 04:36 PM on November 23, 2004
If anything is getting "out of hands in both ends", I don't want to hear about it.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 04:48 PM on November 23, 2004
Since Mike brought it up, I think it's worth pointing out that no one has ever received a verbal haymaker on SportsFilter as hard as the one I took from the dead woman's friend for my "3 a.m." lament. One of my friends (yes I do have some) pissed me off when he described her post as "remarkably accurate."
posted by rcade at 04:50 PM on November 23, 2004
garfield, we got any popcorn left?
posted by squealy at 06:07 PM on November 23, 2004
If you haven't seen the new footage of John Green tossing the beer, check out SportsCenter this evening. It's an incredible underhanded throw -- 40 feet in the air and it didn't lose a drop until landing. The same footage also shows pretty definitively that Artest didn't land a punch on the first fan he accosted, but he did serve him a large helping of chair sandwich.
posted by rcade at 06:18 PM on November 23, 2004
Now that is a post, thanks rcade and let put the past behind us!.
posted by LROD at 06:26 PM on November 23, 2004
I think Chris captures my sentiments best: This whole, "How will we the fans protect ourselves from the raging fury of rogue NBA players vaulting into the stands" line of thinking can be answered quite easily: MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T DROP THE N-BOMB/TALK SH*T ABOUT A GUY'S FAMILY/TELL PAUL PIERCE YOU HOPE HE GETS STABBED AGAIN/THROW SOLID OBJECTS AT PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T WANT STEPHEN JACKSON TO PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE. AGAIN AND AGAIN.
posted by Mike McD at 07:23 PM on November 23, 2004
Artest got off easy. If any non-athelete were to attack a co-worker or a customer, they would loose their job AND be in jail. Howerer, in today's world, this jerk will be able to spin this into a book deal. A high profile job with a large paycheck should never be an excuse to do as one pleases. The "fans" involved should also face criminal charges for assault and disorderly conduct.
posted by jlbelt at 05:37 AM on November 24, 2004
Is this thread on? Firstly, whoever threw that blue bottle should be in the next US Olympic basketball team. I didn't see one of them who could hit a shot from that range. Secondly, I agree with Artest going for the season although I think his friend with the fists deserves it more. Fifthly, I saw something in one of the many other threads about this, that said it'd be almost impossible to keep the individual fans who threw stuff out of arenas. Not so. There are a good number of fans in the UK who are banned for life from their club's grounds and some others who are banned from following England. In some cases, the conditions of their bans involve having to hand in their passports a week before England games in foreign countries and having to report to local police stations at set times, when teams which they're banned from following are playing. Is this inconvenient to your life? Sorry, but sympathy left about the same time you heaved, [an object], at another human, be he a millionaire or not.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 06:41 AM on November 24, 2004
I don't think anyone's arguing that the individual hooligans involved in Friday night's riot should be allowed back into games. Ban 'em all and let God sort 'em out. But you can't fill an arena with booze without spawning new idiots. Your description of football hooliganism is what the U.S. sports franchises are trying desperately to avoid. (Our sports already have a rep for post-championship rioting, so I'm not pointing fingers.) If we reach a point where police authorities have to track the movements of abusive sports fans, we've lost.
posted by rcade at 07:25 AM on November 24, 2004
Artest is bordering on lunacy, promoting some pitiful CD while being questioned about attacking fans. Dude's got issues, which makes me care less and less about what he thinks is fair. The league would be better off without him.
posted by mayerkyl at 08:40 AM on November 24, 2004
Your description of football hooliganism is what the U.S. sports franchises are trying desperately to avoid... If we reach a point where police authorities have to track the movements of abusive sports fans, we've lost . Tracking abusive sports fans ... ohhh the horrors ... where will it all end? What would we have lost, may I ask? The WOASF (The War on Abusive Sports Fans)? And why would tracking abusive fans mean we've lost? That doesn't even make sense. Frankly, it sounds good to me. I bet you'd see an immediate reduction in abusive fans if we adopted those measures.
posted by Mike McD at 11:21 AM on November 24, 2004
I agree. Tracking criminals for past criminal behavior is an excellent idea. its even reasonable, logical, and sensible, commonsensical, yougettheideaical. And banning booze is far to drastic a step. New idiots and their actions are inevitable, but they will be punished and tracked as well. And knowing there are stern and enforced consequences is a pretty effective deterrent. But banning booze is like banning cars after a couple of people get a speeding ticket. It's over the top. (not all criminal behaviour, mind you, because some things deemed criminal really aren't dangerous to others. but that's a debate better suited to a different forum. however in this case, there really isn't a question)
posted by garfield at 11:44 AM on November 24, 2004
Tracking abusive sports fans ... ohhh the horrors ... where will it all end? What would we have lost, may I ask? Your reflexive ridicule is getting tiresome fast. We would have lost the reasonable expectation of fan safety at American sports arenas. If you think U.S. sports lose nothing if hooliganism becomes a problem here, I suggest that you look around at the next pro sports event you attend live, and wave goodbye to all the parents bringing young children to the games.
posted by rcade at 12:50 PM on November 24, 2004
rcade, open your mind man. If *fan tracking* is an effective deterrent, and we adopt *fan tracking*, then hooliganism would be stopped. You assume that things would have to be really bad to adopt fan tracking? Why? We could adopt fan tracking today if we wanted. Throw a bottle. Banned for life. Drop an n-bomb? Tear up their season tickets with no refund. And take enforcement seriously. You'd see an immediate reduction in hooliganism.
posted by Mike McD at 01:13 PM on November 24, 2004
Oh well, next time you'll know better.