Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.
VIDEO: The Starters discuss Rajon Rondo’s suspension
> Sacramento’s Rajon Rondo was suspended one game for directing anti-gay slurs toward referee Bill Kennedy. Was the suspension enough?
Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: The suspension was enough. A player went ballistic and got nasty at a referee. Nothing new to see here. I’m not descending into a debate over the relative ugliness of vile remarks – why a particular six-letter slur is worse than common seven-letter, 10-letter and 12-letter slurs – and I’m not a believer in “protected classes” when it comes to sports or to speech. If you say something boorish, cloddish and cruel, you take the penalty hit same as anyone else and then you live with that on your reputation.
Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Probably. But Rondo then deserved another game or two for his insincere Tweets, where he never mentioned the words “sorry” or “apology.”
Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: Michael Grange of Rogers Sportsnet had the best perspective: There is no way a white player would have gotten one game for multiple racial slurs against Kennedy, an African-American, so one game shouldn’t be enough for this. I don’t know if two games addresses it or three games, but something more than one. Then he distributed an apology so weak that he, or someone on his behalf, had to try again a day later. GM Vlade Divac and coach George Karl had to face the questions because Rondo wouldn’t.
Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Enough? Not really. Had Rondo said that to another player, it could be explained as one of those terms that immature men use to insult another. But Rondo had to know about Kennedy, who was not exactly a secret in the NBA. Rondo should’ve gotten at least three games. And why haven’t his fellow NBA players denounced him? Or do they just save their scorn for guys like Donald Sterling?
John Schuhmann, NBA.com: No. The NBA has been a leader in regard promoting equality among all people and denouncing any kind of discrimination. But a one-game suspension doesn’t send enough of a message, which was made clear by Rondo’s first attempt at an apology. A three-game suspension would have been more appropriate and a stronger message of what the league stands for.
Sekou Smith, NBA.com: Nope. The suspension needed to be accompanied with some sensitivity training for Rondo and anyone else who believes it’s cool, okay or acceptable to disrespect someone else like that in the workplace. It sounds trivial to some, but sometimes you need to learn a bit more about the impact and power of certain words before you toss them around without any regard for what they can do to people. Sticks and stones … and words, too.
Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: If anyone said anything of this nature in racial terms to Rondo, then we would all be supporting Rondo to no end. Society has been late to recognize anti-gay bigotry, which is why the response should be based less on precedent and much more so on the values that ought to be embraced and encouraged going forward. As much as I wish the suspension had been more severe, the most meaningful response was always going to come from the public. Rondo is being held to account in ways that transcend the powers of any league.
Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: The way to really get a player’s attention isn’t through his wallet, it’s by keeping him away from the game. And from that standpoint, I think suspending Rondo for a game is a great way to get his attention. Should the suspension have been longer? To me, one game feels like a tangible punishment, but perhaps one not quite strong enough. If Adam Silver really wanted to make a statement, a two- or three-game suspension (and accompanying loss of salary) would have resonated loudly.