NBA's decision in Sterling scandal may have unintended consequences

   What I'm about to say may shock some people: I think the National Basketball Association went overboard in its punishment of embattled Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Let me be clear. I do not, in any way, condone the sentiments expressed by Sterling in the taped conversation leaked to gossip site TMZ. I find them offensive, ill-timed and out of touch. That being said, I think Sterling is being made an example of by new Commissioner Adam Silver, who is using the case to establish his no-nonsense image.
   On Tuesday, the NBA banned Sterling for life from the league and fined him $2.5 million, the maximum allowed under the players' constitution. Under the terms of the punishment, Sterling is forbidden to attend any future NBA games, or be involved in any way with running the team he purchased in 1981. In addition, he is banned from attending any future board of governors' meetings, and Silver urged the board to exercise its authority in forcing a sale of the team, something he said he would "do everything in my power to make sure it happens."
   Does Sterling deserve severe punishment? Of course he does. His remarks were grossly offensive and showed a man who was out of touch with reality -- especially considering that the league is made up of 80 percent black players. Even his own team has only a few white players on it. His head coach is black. Clearly, this is not an owner who is in touch with the makeup and day-to-day operation of the league.
   Silver is right that Sterling should no longer be an owner in the NBA. Now that his sentiments have become public, it would be impossible for him to run the team effectively. He has angered his own players, who staged a silent protest before a recent playoff game. He has angered his coach. And in the future, what player is going to want to play for an owner -- no matter what the salary -- who holds such repugnant views?
   But I also agree with NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who asked in an op-ed piece published in Time magazine: Why now? This isn't the first time Sterling has been in trouble for his views. In 2006, he was sued by the Justice Department for housing discrimination against blacks. Allegedly, he said then that black tenants "smell and attract vermin." In 2009, he paid almost $3 million in fines for discriminating against blacks, Hispanics and families with children. Sterling has owned the Clippers since 1981. So why wait until now to act when his racist views were already well-known?
   The problem I have with the NBA's action on Tuesday is two-fold. First, it was never confirmed publicly whether the tape at the center of this controversy was legitimate -- whether it was actually Sterling speaking. So we can only assume by the league's action that he's guilty. Second, I believe this punishment sets a dangerous precedent. With this punishment, it has now been established that if you say something that someone else doesn't like, you can lose everything. Ultimately, this will have a chilling effect on free speech in the league, as owners and players will now have to think twice about what they say -- both publicly and privately. That's not good for anyone.
   So how should Silver have dealt with Sterling? For guidance, I would have looked at how Major League Baseball handled former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott. Schott was well-known for her anti-Semitic and generally racist worldview. In response, MLB banned her for a season, along with a hefty fine. When she came back, the other owners let it be known that they wanted nothing more to do with her and they, not the league, eventually forced her to sell the team. Problem solved.
   Similarly, I think the NBA should have suspended Sterling for next season, then let the free market take its course. With an openly racist owner, disgusted fans would likely have stayed away in droves, maybe even returned their season tickets. Prospective players, especially superstars, would have thought twice about coming to play for the Clippers. It would have taken longer, but eventually the team would have returned to its status as league also-rans instead of a team on the rise. Once team revenues fell, how long do you think it would have taken for Sterling to find a better investment? Not long. As a last resort, NBA owners could have done what their MLB brethren did two decades ago: Simply refuse to deal with him and force him to sell the team.
   Unfortunately, we'll never know what might have happened if the league had taken a more measured approach. Instead, a new commissioner, anxious to establish his reputation as a no-nonsense boss and a league that had turned a blind eye to Sterling's racism for years decided to make an example of him. They decided to throw him under the bus to stop any further damage to the league's reputation during playoff time. And in the process, I believe they have done lasting damage to the league's future.