Indiana Pacers player Ron Artest will now be able to take the time off he asked for a month ago to do his rap album. Not because he asked nicely but because he is suspended from the NBA for the rest of the season. Friday night Artest ran into the stands during a game because a fan threw a drink at him. This fan was upset because Artest had fouled his Detroit Piston, Ben Wallace. This lead to the biggest brawl in NBA's history.
Not only will Artest not be playing this season but he will also not recieve his $5 million salary pay. Sadly, this probably means nothing to Artest. Did Artest really learn a lesson or is he just getting this time off now for his rap album?
Artest was not the only player suspended from Friday nights brawl. Stephen Jackson is suspended for 30 games and Jermaine O'Neal for 25. The home team of Detroit also has players suspended. Ben Wallace will sit out 6 games and Anthony Johnson 5. Four other players are suspended for one game because they left the bench during the fight. These players are Indiana's Reggie Miller and Detroit's Chauncey Billups, Elden Campbell, and Derrick Coleman. All suspensions are without pay.
Are these too harsh? Some say they are because the fans need to be in control. Others say it will continue to happen unless harsh punishment occurs. I think harsh punishment is not a 10 game suspension. Harsh punishment is not allowing them to play in the NBA again. Suspension just holds back a pay check that some can live their entire life off of.
3 comments:
Artest is a punk, despite whether or not Detroit's fans are loud and obnoxious. The genius wanted time off to concentrate on his record label, and he got more than ample time. I think Artest should have been suspended indefinitally.
The two fans that came on the floor to fight deserved the punishment that Artest and his cohort dished out.
Shouldn't these fans get charged for atleast disturbing the peace? A teenager can get in a fight at school and get charged with that so why can't an adult during a public basketball game? It is because they are afraid of losing fans? I think the fans are just as liable as the athletes. It takes two to "tango."
-1 for spelling mistakes in the comments by Taber Wolrab, Pramahaphil, Janet, and Bruce_Banner slide.
I especially liked Kova's comment.
Here's a good economics question for you, with ethical and social implications: should penalties be proportional to the crime, or to income?
If its the former, then the penalties should be the same to the fans and to the players who were in the brawl. If its the latter, then the penalties on the players should be higher.
The latter seems unfair, but it also raises the problem for society that crimes become very cheap for the rich.
Finland actually has laws that are based on the latter principal. In a famous case a few years ago, a sausage heir got a $200,000 ticket for going 45 in a 25 zone.
Post a Comment