Ime Udoka suspended for the 22-23 season

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
I'd be shocked if an organization is reaching out to a victim to get a reference. Like how does that conversation even go? "So I know the sexual harassment was awful and all....but was it really THAT bad?"

I'd guess the Rockets spoke to people within the Celtics organization and it was similar to what happened in other cases where it isn't enough to ruin a guys career but enough for him to move on and start fresh somewhere else.....since that's what's happening.
“We understand that there was an incident with Ime Udoka, and we’d like to speak directly to you to get your version of what happened, rather than hear only from Ime himself or some intermediaries or third parties who don’t have your personal involvement and direct perspective.”

I mean, it’s pretty much exactly what the Bruins should have done in the Mitchell Miller situation. It’s also exactly what you’d avoid if you want to give an air of plausible deniability while pretending that you did real diligence.

“Not enough to ruin a guy’s career, but enough for him to move on and start fresh,” is in the eye of the beholder. And, typically, a neutral investigator would want more information from direct participants rather than less when performing such analysis.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,071
“We understand that there was an incident with Ime Udoka, and we’d like to speak directly to you to get your version of what happened, rather than hear only from Ime himself or some intermediaries or third parties who don’t have your personal involvement and direct perspective.”

I mean, it’s pretty much exactly what the Bruins should have done in the Mitchell Miller situation. It’s also exactly what you’d avoid if you want to give an air of plausible deniability while pretending that you did real diligence.
Is contacting a victim for the purpose of employing the perpetrator ever acceptable? That's my thing. I don't know what these teams do but I cannot believe they would do that when they can simply contact the organization who previously employed the perp to receive the same information.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Is contacting a victim for the purpose of employing the perpetrator ever acceptable? That's my thing. I don't know what these teams do but I cannot believe they would do that when they can simply contact the organization who previously employed the perp to receive the same information.
Well, why don’t you let me know what you think is unacceptable about it, and we can maybe go at that narrower proposition?

And you can’t know that you’re getting the same information from the team. It’s not like you’re just getting a bunch of videotapes or something.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,716
Hartford, CT
“We understand that there was an incident with Ime Udoka, and we’d like to speak directly to you to get your version of what happened, rather than hear only from Ime himself or some intermediaries or third parties who don’t have your personal involvement and direct perspective.”

I mean, it’s pretty much exactly what the Bruins should have done in the Mitchell Miller situation. It’s also exactly what you’d avoid if you want to give an air of plausible deniability while pretending that you did real diligence.
Spot-on. An organization vetting Udoka or any other person who faced a publicly known instance of alleged misconduct doesn’t try this in some manner only if they don’t give a shit and/or don’t want to know.

Is contacting a victim for the purpose of employing the perpetrator ever acceptable? That's my thing. I don't know what these teams do but I cannot believe they would do that when they can simply contact the organization who previously employed the perp to receive the same information.
Why? And why would you think that the Celtics would say anything of substance to Houston about the matter given the liability issue, or that anything they do say is axiomatically more or equally reliable than what the alleged victim would say?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,071
Spot-on. An organization vetting Udoka or any other person who faced a publicly known instance of alleged misconduct doesn’t try this in some manner only if they don’t give a shit and/or don’t want to know.



Why? And why would you think that the Celtics would say anything of substance to Houston about the matter given the liability issue, or that anything they do say is axiomatically more or equally reliable than what the alleged victim would say?
I dunno that just seems nuts to me. If I was a victim and received a call from my perps prospective employer for a reference I'd tell them to go F-themselves first and probably sue them for harassment second.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
33,387
I dunno that just seems nuts to me. If I was a victim and received a call from my perps prospective employer for a reference I'd tell them to go F-themselves first and probably sue them for harassment second.
Particularly if you think the org is just covering their ass and going to hire him no matter what.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,583
Wouldn’t there likely have been NDAs signed by all parties? My point was more that I couldn’t see, legally, who’d have first hand knowledge and be able to discuss.

The larger point being that NDAs often empower the perpetrator to move on, and we often see abusers or worse caught publicly only to find out there’d been prior bad acts shrouded by non-disclosures.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
I dunno that just seems nuts to me. If I was a victim and received a call from my perps prospective employer for a reference I'd tell them to go F-themselves first and probably sue them for harassment second.
You’re not suing anyone for harassment for making that call, and neither is she.

But you’re right. She probably prefers not being consulted at all, having that decision made for her without her input, and having Ime hired anyway. It’s good that Houston was thinking of her and being protective like that.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Wouldn’t there likely have been NDAs signed by all parties? My point was more that I couldn’t see, legally, who’d have first hand knowledge and be able to discuss.

The larger point being that NDAs often empower the perpetrator to move on, and we often see abusers or worse caught publicly only to find out there’d been prior bad acts shrouded by non-disclosures.
I wouldn’t assume that she got an NDA preventing her from speaking. Even if she did, the Celtics could waive it for these purposes.

I think there are plenty of ways to thread the necessary needles if Houston wanted to get as much information as possible and she were willing to speak.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,601
I think the point is that there is a perception amongst some of us that Houston didn't really, actually care and was really just interested in pretending to do their due diligence. If they were actually concerned, they could have made some effort - and of course, the victim could have (and maybe even might likely have) refused to speak with them. But, if Houston really cared they could have asked Ime to waive the victim's NDA or whatever - and if I'm Houston, and I care, I would be concerned if Ime refused that request.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,217
Los Angeles, CA
Particularly if you think the org is just covering their ass and going to hire him no matter what.
While your comment makes sense, it seems to me that you'd only seek out the victim if you were someone in the org who was trying to kill the deal. Because there's zero chance that she's going to have all flowery praise which wouldn't cause problems for the team should her testimony get leaked somehow. Of course, if you have the power to demand that, then you'd probably just kill the idea from the get go and not bother interviewing anyone.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,071
Wouldn’t there likely have been NDAs signed by all parties? My point was more that I couldn’t see, legally, who’d have first hand knowledge and be able to discuss.

The larger point being that NDAs often empower the perpetrator to move on, and we often see abusers or worse caught publicly only to find out there’d been prior bad acts shrouded by non-disclosures.
Do they really need to hear it directly from anyone's mouth either? It seems that everyone with a direct line to the Celtics has heard about this and everyone is keeping their mouths shut out of respect for the families involved. Guys like Stephen Jackson and others were saying how awkward and bad it was.....the details don't appear to be a big secret to those close to the team. The Rockets wouldn't seem to have to go to far to find out enough without needing to launch a 6-week investigation.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
While your comment makes sense, it seems to me that you'd only seek out the victim if you were someone in the org who was trying to kill the deal. Because there's zero chance that she's going to have all flowery praise which wouldn't cause problems for the team should her testimony get leaked somehow. Of course, if you have the power to demand that, then you'd probably just kill the idea from the get go and not bother interviewing anyone.
We already know there’s a sexual harassment allegation, right? And her statements would be just as damaging if you hired the guy but studiously avoided contacting the alleged victim.

If you’re willing to live with the fallout, I don’t see why getting confirmation that the situation is what you initially thought it was is independently damaging or requires you to kill the deal. A certain portion of that cake is already baked. Entirely different if the story is horrific and you go through with the signing, either way.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Do they really need to hear it directly from anyone's mouth either? It seems that everyone with a direct line to the Celtics has heard about this and everyone is keeping their mouths shut out of respect for the families involved. Guys like Stephen Jackson and others were saying how awkward and bad it was. The Rockets wouldn't seem to have to go to far to find out enough without needing to launch a 6-week investigation.
If you’re so worried about disrespect inherent with talking with the victim and affording her the opportunity to exercise her adult agency to speak or not speak to you, I dunno, maybe don’t hire the guy to coach a professional sport airing on national TV on a regular basis?

Man, I’m really starting to wonder if “respect for the families involved” is really your primary motivation here.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,071
If you’re so worried about disrespect inherent with talking with the victim and affording her the opportunity to exercise her adult agency to speak or not speak to you, I dunno, maybe don’t hire the guy to coach a professional sport airing on national TV on a regular basis?

Man, I’m really starting to wonder if “respect for the families involved” is really your primary motivation here.
Oh here we go about mindreaders discussing my "motivations." Jesus F some of you people and your personal shots.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
65,692
Do they really need to hear it directly from anyone's mouth either? It seems that everyone with a direct line to the Celtics has heard about this and everyone is keeping their mouths shut out of respect for the families involved. Guys like Stephen Jackson and others were saying how awkward and bad it was.....the details don't appear to be a big secret to those close to the team. The Rockets wouldn't seem to have to go to far to find out enough without needing to launch a 6-week investigation.
Well, I think that’s what’s at issue, and I don’t claim to know the answer, but, like:
  • It’s not really that big of an issue, so hire him; or
  • It’s kinda a big deal, but people won’t find out, so go for it and hire him.
As I said above: I have no idea which it is, just that that’s what’s going on here.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,033
Not specifically referencing this case, but I think it’s a little presumptuous to assume that cold-calling a victim about a perpetrator you are planning to give millions of dollars to -maybe just so you can say you did talk to them and subsequently decided whatever happened wasn’t all that bad - is giving the victim “agency,” and won’t just upset them. There may be a process through intermediaries and so forth that would make more sense but I’d have to hear about it.

But, whatever. This has gone on too long so I apologize.
 
Last edited:

sonofgodcf

Guest
Jul 17, 2005
1,646
The toilet.
Not specifically referencing this case, but I think it’s a little presumptuous to assume that cold-calling a victim about a perpetrator you are planning to give millions of dollars to -maybe just so you can say you did talk to them and subsequently decided whatever happened wasn’t all that bad - is giving the victim “agency,” and won’t just upset them. There may be a process through intermediaries and so forth that would make more sense but I’d have to hear about it.

But, whatever. This has gone on too long so I apologize.
I'd assume the victim has a lawyer by this point, wouldn't Houston's first step (or second, getting referred by the C's org) be to reach out to the lawyer? Ask if she is open to speaking with them or if she would like to share/pass forward any information she feels relevant?

If they're going to just hire him regardless, then sure, skip that step. But I'd think at least kicking over a few rocks to make sure you're not hiring a sexual predator into a position of power is a prudent move.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Oh here we go about mindreaders discussing my "motivations." Jesus F some of you people and your personal shots.
No one has to read your mind, dude. Your posts are plenty. It’s not appropriate for the Rockets to treat the alleged victim like an adult capable of deciding for herself whether she wants to talk about the issue. It’s downright harassing. And several other third parties are positioned just as well as she is to describe . . . what happened to her.

Again, you haven’t explained why treating this woman like an adult is inappropriate or harassment, so, yeah, I don’t think you’re quite as opaque as you’d like to seem here.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Not specifically referencing this case, but I think it’s a little presumptuous to assume that cold-calling a victim about a perpetrator you are planning to give millions of dollars to -maybe just so you can say you did talk to them and subsequently decided whatever happened wasn’t all that bad - is giving the victim “agency,” and won’t just upset them. There may be a process through intermediaries and so forth that would make more sense but I’d have to hear about it.

But, whatever. This has gone on too long so I apologize.
It’s almost as if an alternative to cold calling were offered in this very thread.

But yes, I am glad that we are aligned that a sham process the likes of which no one suggested here would be bad.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Not aligned. It’s not necessarily a sham process, but it is a delicate process which risks: 1) the person contacted feeling invalidated, not empowered;
2) subsequent statements from the person contacted saying this team hired him even though I told them he did such and such. It’s not as black and white as you believe.
My sham process comment was directed at the portion of your post regarding the predetermined “maybe just so you can say you did talk to them and subsequently decided whatever happened wasn’t all that bad” bit.

And yes, it really is that easy. You give the person agency by providing them the opportunity to decide whether or not to tell their story, rather than deciding for them that you need to protect them from that opportunity, because third parties are just as capable of providing her point of view. You can make the offer through the Celtics to her lawyer or other representative, and leave the ball in her court.

To the extent that you then go and hire Udoka anyway, it’s the hire—not treating the person like a grown up and giving the person an opportunity to have her say—that is invalidating.

It’s pretty fucking simple.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,904
guam
It’s almost as if an alternative to cold calling were offered in this very thread.

But yes, I am glad that we are aligned that a sham process the likes of which no one suggested here would be bad.
We already know that her allegations were investigated and deemed credible enough (by an organization with far more at stake in the outcome than a prospective new employer, to create bias in his favor) to warrant his firing. It’s virtually res judicata at this point. What exactly are you expecting when you call this woman?

EDIT: and why would a “diligent” organization attempt to recreate the investigation? They’re in far inferior of a position to do this investigation, and there is no reason not to trust the outcome of the process in Boston.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,583
My sham process comment was directed at the portion of your post regarding the predetermined “maybe just so you can say you did talk to them and subsequently decided whatever happened wasn’t all that bad” bit.

And yes, it really is that easy. You give the person agency by providing them the opportunity to decide whether or not to tell their story, rather than deciding for them that you need to protect them from that opportunity, because third parties are just as capable of providing her point of view. You can make the offer through the Celtics to her lawyer or other representative, and leave the ball in her court.

To the extent that you then go and hire Udoka anyway, it’s the hire—not treating the person like a grown up and giving the person an opportunity to have her say—that is invalidating.

It’s pretty fucking simple.
I think we’re considering the very real possibility the victim is interviewed by the team and they hire Ime anyways and use that conversation as a talking point in their PR - we reached out to the victim, we spoke to the victim.

Unless she had a real chance at a veto here, it’s necessarily a bit of a sham. She seems to have thought his conduct was worthy of a public firing a year ago.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
We already know that her allegations were investigated and deemed credible enough (by an organization with far more at stake in the outcome than a prospective new employer, to create bias in his favor) to warrant his firing. It’s virtually res judicata at this point. What exactly are you expecting when you call this woman?
Her point of view and statement as to how this matter has affected her life in the past few months, which might differ from that of a $4B organization?

EDIT: and why would a “diligent” organization attempt to recreate the investigation? They’re in far inferior of a position to do this investigation, and there is no reason not to trust the outcome of the process in Boston.
There’s a difference between “recreating” an investigation months after the fact and speaking to the alleged victim to get her point of view. There’s also a difference between not trusting the outcome of the process in Boston and believing that maybe, just maybe, the alleged victim might differ at all in her conclusions and feelings about what happened, and that there could be some benefit to hearing what she has to say. But the strawmen are cute.

Seriously, even on a board notable for its jock sniffing, this is a supremely fucked up discussion at this point.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
I think we’re considering the very real possibility the victim is interviewed by the team and they hire Ime anyways and use that conversation as a talking point in their PR - we reached out to the victim, we spoke to the victim.

Unless she had a real chance at a veto here, it’s necessarily a bit of a sham. She seems to have thought his conduct was worthy of a public firing a year ago.
Yes. I continue to agree that, if they’re just going to hire him anyway, using her as a sham fig leaf is a bad idea. And, I don’t know what she thought months ago. Or whether that’s identical to what she thinks now. Or whether there was some degree of contrition that she has accepted and believes he’s worthy of a second chance.

That’s the point. I’m not her. The Celtics aren’t her. The Rockets aren’t her.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,904
guam
Her point of view and statement as to how this matter has affected her life in the past few months, which might differ from that of a $4B organization?


There’s a difference between “recreating” an investigation months after the fact and speaking to the alleged victim to get her point of view. There’s also a difference between not trusting the outcome of the process in Boston and believing that maybe, just maybe, the alleged victim might differ at all in her conclusions and feelings about what happened, and that there could be some benefit to hearing what she has to say. But the strawmen are cute.

Seriously, even on a board notable for its jock sniffing, this is a supremely fucked up discussion at this point.
My point is the opposite of “jock sniffing.” My point is that they have already demonstrated the character of the organization.

This isn’t a question of “diligence.” It is very difficult to believe there’s more to be gained from kicking the tires, other than willful whitewashing (“We spoke with her and decided, based on all the factors, hiring him was an acceptable decision.”) I don’t know, I mean I do understand people get second chances, but if you’re going to give that second chance just own it.

Sure, there’s a non-zero chance that she has not terrible things to say about him and the Celtics fired him under a reputational haze for the fun of it, but that seems…unlikely.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
My point is the opposite of “jock sniffing.” My point is that they have already demonstrated the character of the organization.

This isn’t a question of “diligence.” It is very difficult to believe there’s more to be gained from kicking the tires, other than willful whitewashing (“We spoke with her and decided, based on all the factors, hiring him was an acceptable decision.”) I don’t know, I mean I do understand people get second chances, but if you’re going to give that second chance just own it.

Sure, there’s a non-zero chance that she has not terrible things to say about him and the Celtics fired him under a reputational haze for the fun of it, but that seems…unlikely.
Your point rests upon the assumed premise that the Celtics’ POV and information is the equivalent or superior to hers. No matter how well they did at the beginning of the season, that’s simply not the case (especially given that this apparently was not an isolated incident).
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,904
guam
Your point rests upon the assumed premise that the Celtics’ POV and information is the equivalent or superior to hers. No matter how well they did at the beginning of the season, that’s simply not the case (especially given that this apparently was not an isolated incident).
I don’t follow. I get your point that she deserves the dignity of a call. At least I think that’s your point. Do we know they didn’t reach out? My point is more just that it seems very unlikely to provide a material fact in favor of Udoka. So I’m not sure I see the failure to call her to be a failure of diligence. Courtesy? Decency? Sure. But probably not diligence.
 

Mloaf71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
648
Your point rests upon the assumed premise that the Celtics’ POV and information is the equivalent or superior to hers. No matter how well they did at the beginning of the season, that’s simply not the case (especially given that this apparently was not an isolated incident).
Your position here is completely off the rails.

1. I don’t know if any company when hiring someone that would speak to any one other that references. This is not a background investigation and bringing in outside interviews to the hiring (such as calling the victim of a crime Ime has never been charged or convicted of) opens the hiring company to a potential lawsuit

2. If Ime doesn’t get a job because of what the victim said and it is not completely the truth, the victim is now open to potential suit from Ime

3. If there was any settlement it is likely the victim signed away the ability to speak publicly as a result of that settlement

Not saying any of the above 3 are likely, but I’m sure the Rockets team attorneys are risk adverse like all other corporate attorneys and would steer the team clear of engaging in what you’re suggesting.

Let’s try to be a little realistic when puffing our chest and proclaiming “I’m standing up for the victims right in the hiring process”. Unfortunately, in the litigious world we live in, they have no right in the hiring process.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,340
Melrose, MA
Your position here is completely off the rails.

1. I don’t know if any company when hiring someone that would speak to any one other that references. This is not a background investigation and bringing in outside interviews to the hiring (such as calling the victim of a crime Ime has never been charged or convicted of) opens the hiring company to a potential lawsuit
"Ime, we're strongly considering an offer, but as part of our due diligence we'd like to speak with Ms. X. Is that OK with you? Take some time, discuss with your lawyer before you answer."
2. If Ime doesn’t get a job because of what the victim said and it is not completely the truth, the victim is now open to potential suit from Ime
Which would subject Ime to discovery and bring out facts he would probably prefer to keep buried. And unless the victim's contained provable lies, his odds of winning would be low.
3. If there was any settlement it is likely the victim signed away the ability to speak publicly as a result of that settlement

Not saying any of the above 3 are likely, but I’m sure the Rockets team attorneys are risk adverse like all other corporate attorneys and would steer the team clear of engaging in what you’re suggesting.
We're not talking about a press conference, here.
 

Mloaf71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
648
I’m not disagreeing that speaking to the victim would potentially be a fair outcome for the her.

I’m disagreeing that it’s a possible outcome given involvement of lawyers on 3 sides (Ime, Victim, and Rockets) all trying to minimize risk to the maximum extent. Getting 3 lawyers to all say yes to anything is hard enough, never mind something as complex as employee sexual harassment claims.

This is leaving out the fact the Celtics probably don’t want the details to leak and/or the victim doesn’t just want to move on with her life and leave the Ime drama behind.
 
Last edited:

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Your position here is completely off the rails.

1. I don’t know if any company when hiring someone that would speak to any one other that references. This is not a background investigation and bringing in outside interviews to the hiring (such as calling the victim of a crime Ime has never been charged or convicted of) opens the hiring company to a potential lawsuit.
You have literally no idea what you’re talking about, but I appreciate the gumption associated with making that ignorance and your lack of sophistication with high profile hiring the primary premises of your post.

2. If Ime doesn’t get a job because of what the victim said and it is not completely the truth, the victim is now open to potential suit from Ime
Cool. “Potential suit” for what?

3. If there was any settlement it is likely the victim signed away the ability to speak publicly as a result of that settlement
Neato. We don’t know whether there was a settlement—seems that none has been reported, though I might have missed something—and it’s almost as if I literally addressed the NDA issue earlier in the thread.

Not saying any of the above 3 are likely, but I’m sure the Rockets team attorneys are risk adverse like all other corporate attorneys and would steer the team clear of engaging in what you’re suggesting.

Let’s try to be a little realistic when puffing our chest and proclaiming “I’m standing up for the victims right in the hiring process”. Unfortunately, in the litigious world we live in, they have no right in the hiring process.
If I realistically had almost twenty years of experience as a litigator, how would you say that would stack up against the reality education you’re giving me?
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,310
Don't sell yourself short, you've been litigating on here in your spare time just as long.
Yes and how lucky are we that a self described litigator for 20 years needs to appease his ego by bumping one month old threads on a forum he doesn’t contribute to, so he can argue with those not in his field. Always a pleasure to see this expert flex.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
Yes and how lucky are we that a self described litigator for 20 years needs to appease his ego by bumping one month old threads on a forum he doesn’t contribute to, so he can argue with those not in his field. Always a pleasure to see this expert flex.
Yeah, that’s definitely what happened when I replied to a completely anodyne question—from someone in my field—with an utterly banal description of the process. I was definitely throwing some bait out there to the armchairs.

This is a rich response coming from a guy whose presence in this board is 25% “Do you even finance, bro?” and 25% messing up basic facts when you passive aggressively try to complain about me, though. You even almost got part of it right this time.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,728
Even Kevin Durant thinks this board is too thin-skinned. This is hilarious. Messaging boarding ain’t life or death - we’ll get through this.
 

Mloaf71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
648
You have literally no idea what you’re talking about, but I appreciate the gumption associated with making that ignorance and your lack of sophistication with high profile hiring the primary premises of your post.


Cool. “Potential suit” for what?


Neato. We don’t know whether there was a settlement—seems that none has been reported, though I might have missed something—and it’s almost as if I literally addressed the NDA issue earlier in the thread.


If I realistically had almost twenty years of experience as a litigator, how would you say that would stack up against the reality education you’re giving me?
As opposed to comparing resumes I am happy to bow out of this topic, even though I maintain it’s an unreasonable standard to hold any employer to. I admittedly don’t know the nuances of the law but I’m positive Ime has rights as someone who has never been convicted of a crime and as such both the victim and Rockets have rightfully avoided inflaming the situation.

My sincere apologies Mr. Dershowitz had I known you were a contributing member of SOSH I would have paid more deference.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,632
Maine
Stupid question.
And not that it makes any of this "OK" for the Victim.

But could Houston ask Boston "We would be willing to pay $50,000 to speak with the person with direct knowledge of the incident. We would also sign a NDA ourselves regarding this individual."

The victim could then say yea or nea.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
42,439
South Boston
As opposed to comparing resumes I am happy to bow out of this topic, even though I maintain it’s an unreasonable standard to hold any employer to. I admittedly don’t know the nuances of the law but I’m positive Ime has rights as someone who has never been convicted of a crime and as such both the victim and Rockets have rightfully avoided inflaming the situation.

My sincere apologies Mr. Dershowitz had I known you were a contributing member of SOSH I would have paid more deference.
Dude, there’s an infinite world of shit I don’t know. It’s really just not all that hard to not pretend that I do.
 
Last edited:

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,583
For everyone pitying Nia Long, she just outed Ime’s mistress in a hashtag alongside a video on white fragility. So, maybe not so sympathetic.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,217
Los Angeles, CA
For everyone pitying Nia Long, she just outed Ime’s mistress in a hashtag alongside a video on white fragility. So, maybe not so sympathetic.
A few thoughts here:
  • From Nia's perspective, this woman is no innocent - she contributed in some way to the downfall of their family and marriage. I'm not sure why protecting her identity should be Nia's concern.
  • Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that hashtag is at least partly an extension of Nia's biased perspective and naivete on this topic. The Celtics were legally obligated to protect this woman, and Nia probably felt slighted by organization giving her what she felt was preferential treatment over her. But really, what were they supposed to do? It was just a really shitty situation created by Ime. In fact, didn't we see signs of this in some of Nia's public statements or news reports way back when?
  • I never would have guessed it was Lebron's mom.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
16,772
Yeah... that hashtag was pretty big starting September 23rd, 2022. I'll stay way clear of the larger, more complex issues, though.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
31,071
I feel like I am pretty in the know in regards to the Celtics and I also had no idea that her identity was already known
My bad, I had no idea her identity was already known.
That's a pretty incredible PR play the Celtics called here as I didn't know either. Let the storm blow over and it will go away. Impressed how effective their strategy was here.