I am around a ton of employee investigations. The simple answer is almost always the answer. The only things that we are fairly certain of is that the investigation started a few weeks before we knew of anything and that it resulted in an almost unprecedented suspension. It’s likely that the husband of his affair partner found out, did the right thing and exposed the affair to his employer (chances are he used some company resources to conduct the affair). Once he did that it put the Celtics in some level of legal concern, at the very least some level of reputation loss. They likely did what they had to - contacted their legal team. That legal team likely suggested a ‘paid’ suspension where Ime was still a 100% employeee but likely had some level of oversight to his performance and definitely his electronic communications. This bought the Celtics and their team to run a ‘full investigation’ - and good on them actually running a full investigation because many, many entities will just do a lip service investigation. They investigated and probably found what was bad enough stuff to indicate that they were just touching the tip of the iceberg, as lame corporate types would say. Without the entire iceberg being seen their legal counsel would have suggested the most serious punishment they would still give the Celts ground to stand on if Ime or the court of public opinion came after them. Some enterprising young person suggested a year ban, everyone on the call agreed and here we are. Wyc and Brad went home and hammered down 5 bourbons knowing they were the ones that would have to deliver this message. They had little time to prepare before the story took on a life of its own, thus Brad with his uncharacteristic candor.The interviewer said that, and Matt Barnes did agree with it, but it's a slightly different nuance than if Matt Barnes had mentioned that.
It's weird, it's hard for me to imagine why it would matter so much who it was, vs. what exactly went down. Or to put it better, who in the organization would be so egregious to get that kind of reaction from Matt Barnes? Owner's wife? Player's wife? Because simply having an affair with a travel secretary doesn't seem like that would get him a year's suspension and unlikely to coach again - unless of course there was other bad stuff around that relationship. It seemed like that was the assumption from last week, but this interview seems to spin things a little differently. Hard to read the tea leaves.