Is This About Guns, or.....?
January 7th 2010 21:41
Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas’ suspension has been handed down from David Stern, but that doesn’t mean the story is finished changing, er, developing. Days after the initial reports of a gun confrontation in the lockerroom between Arenas and teammate Javaris Crittenton were falsified, confusion has set in as to what exactly Arenas was disciplined for. In a statement that accompanied the announcement of the suspension, Commissioner Stern said that Arenas’ behavior makes him “not currently fit to take the court.” Now, as the supposed truth about what really happened on the team plane and later in the lockerroom is revealed, and in light of Arenas pregame actions Tuesday night, Stern’s rationale for punishment appears relatively ambiguous.
Arenas has sung the tune of innocence and jest throughout the investigation. He showed no signs of relenting when, during pregame intros against Philadelphia on Tuesday, he shot up his encircling teammates with finger pistols and a wide grin. This had to stoke Stern’s wrath while watching from his office in New York City. The question is, did this occurrence color Stern’s decision on how to punish the Wizards star? Should it? If Arenas did nothing wrong, as he claims, and has no fear of legal authorities in the matter, then could it be that this whole thing is incredibly trumped up and exaggerated by the media?
I am not condoning Arenas’ comments or behavior at all. His constant joking about the guns is inappropriate and creates the perception that he doesn’t take this issue seriously. The gun language in the NBA collective bargaining agreement is clear and strong, and, in the least, he violated that code. Rumors are that his guns were also unlicensed, and he certainly carried them across state lines from Virginia into the District of Columbia. These are the things we know, everything else regarding the lockerroom confrontation is speculation. The fact that the report has changed a handful of times already testifies to this.
My concern is this, and not just because I’m an enraged fantasy NBA owner of Arenas: as the legal case against Gil apparently weakens, it looks like David Stern came down hard for minor NBA personal conduct violations, some mostly harmless joking, a flippant attitude, and trumped up rumors by anti-gun media. To be fair, Stern was between a rock and a hard place: he had to discipline Arenas, harshly at that, and could not afford to lose public support by waiting to act. The spineless, but savvy, move was to suspend Arenas indefinitely and possibly further discipline him “pending completion of the investigation by the NBA.” In other words, “I’m going to wait and see if anything substantive turns up in the investigation that I can use to punish this punk even more. If not, then I’ll define the suspension and tone it down a bit.” By suspending Arenas indefinitely, Stern covers himself while still reserving his power to tinker with the suspension as truth comes out.
So if Arenas is absolved of all felonious activity and his discipline begins and ends with Stern’s suspension, does that mean that Stern will end the suspension or rescind his salary losses? Fat chance. This is the issue I have with this whole scenario and the portrayal of Arenas as the bad guy. Does Arenas' behavior truly make him currently unfit to play? Or is it his defiance of Stern that makes him unfit? Or his careless attitude about a serious matter? If you ask and find answers to these questions, it seems to me like Stern has nothing concrete to act on. Either that, or he should suspend every guy in his league who has a bad attitude about something or does something personally disrespectful to Stern.
Does Stern really want to administer justice? He should come down hard, if not harder, on Javaris Crittenton.
| 35 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
