Baylor Lawsuit Erroneously Lists Stern As Being At Meeting

Baylor Lawsuit Incorrectly Lists Stern As Present For Comment

STERN'S RESPONSE: SPORTING NEWS' Sean Deveney wrote Stern Saturday during his annual state-of-the-league session "vaguely addressed" the Baylor lawsuit, which is "clearly a sensitive subject for Stern, not only because of the ongoing litigation, but on a personal level, too." Stern: "My instructions are to tell you that I haven’t seen the complaint, and therefore, I can’t comment about it. The news story about it was enough to make me very sad. I have known Elgin for, my gosh, I don’t know -- I began as an attorney for the league in 1966. So there you go. This is one of our legends and, I just -- it makes me sad to read about that stuff" (SPORTINGNEWS.com, 2/16).  

FURTHER LOOK: Miami Herald columnist Israel Gutierrez said it would "seem curious that Baylor withstood 22 years of such an environment, but it's no reason to dismiss his allegations." Baylor's claim, "unlike the Clippers, should be taken seriously." Gutierrez: "At the very least the league should take a close look at Sterling's business practices. It very well could be that L.A.'s constant losing is due to much more significant issues than penny-pinching and poor draft-picks" ("The Sports Reporters," ESPN, 2/14). But in Jacksonville, Gene Frenette wrote "with that resume, Baylor should be grateful he was allowed to keep his job for that long." Frenette: "And if work conditions were so bad, why stick around for two decades?" (FLORIDA TIMES-UNION, 2/14). ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser: “You take the guy’s money for this length of time and now suddenly you say he’s the devil on Earth?” ESPN’s Michael Wilbon: “Why not sue him five years ago?” (“PTI,” ESPN, 2/13).

Print This Article