I wouldn't be surprised if Stern told Rome to ask it so he could come back with his wife-beating analogy.
There is a likely very good reason why Stern chose not to answer that question. Because of obvious follow-up questions designed to paint him into a corner. The obvious follow up question is: Then why don't you televise it? If they have chosen never to televise it again, because it would just create more and more "slow motion youtube videos" showing how each lottery is questionable, then Stern has no answer for that question that would satisfy the audience. So, then the news would be "Stern refusing to televise the lottery and won't say why." So, Stern chose to not defend himself or the league, because Rome and the audience were ready for his responses and would have ripped them apart. Stern did not get defensive, imo. He seemed prepared to me. Had Rome asked the question properly like Bill Simmons would, then he might have received are real answer.
Stern's viewpoint is reasonable. Stern's response, that's a whole other story. What he said was classless. He's an ass. He lowered himself to Rome's level. Do I think the NBA is rigged? Not really. Am I suspicious of Stern? Oh you bet ya. The way he handled to question, the way he acted, was like a weasel. Why go on the offense if you have nothing to hide? All he did is further solidify the conspiracy theorists views and made himself look like a dick.
It is a common strategy to NOT answer questions like that if you believe you are being setup for a series of follow-up questions designed to paint you into a corner. There is a chance Rome would have "racked him" if Stern gave a short, concise, honest, informational answer that included apologizing to fans. But there is also a chance Rome would have followed-up with the 2nd question all fans what to hear: "Then why don't you just televise it." Which only leads to messy answer that fail to satisfy anyone who thinks it is rigged. Then the whole purpose of the honest answer and apology to the fans is just lost to the wind. Safest way, don't answer the question. And since it is Rome, make a spectacle of it and put him on the defensive. Then another reporter will want to interview you about your Rome interview (like Bill Simmons) and THEN you can give the real answer. I can see why Stern wouldn't trust Rome when the question was framed that way.
Stern is a great communicator and well prepared for his interviews. He knows what kind of crowd he'll have and how to speak to that audience. Jim Rome knows his audience too and that's why he wasn't truly offended. He probably thanked Stern afterwards. When Stern hates a media guy he simply drops down facts to make the guy sound like an idiot.
Jim Everett good to have you on the show ! Check THAT CHRIS Everet thanks for being on the show! http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...wYG-Bg&usg=AFQjCNHh1h0htXPsoXT0d0-pCeqyCOZ9Gw
He attacked Rome first by saying shame on you. He attacked Rome and went after him well before Rome did anything inappropriate. The question is valid, and as fans we have a right to ask. Does that mean the league is rigged? No. But asking that question is fair. Rome is an ass, but to be fair we all know that. Stern knows that too, he even knew it when he agreed to the interview. All Stern had to do was say "I won't even dignify that with an answer, if that is the only question you have then I believe the interview is over". That's it. He didn't. He attacked him, he heckled him, he acted like an ass. If anything, Rome was more reserved than Stern was. There's not answering the question (like Obama did with the Birthers) and then there's acting like an ass when you are the face of the NBA. He represents the league, and he made the league look like crap. Heck, even look at how John Cena reacted to the steroids questions he's plagued with. Even that was classier than how Stern acted. All it did for me is make him look more suspicious than he did before the interview. I really want to believe the league is not rigged, but when the commish acts like that I can't help but wonder... Did the Hornets get special treatment in the Draft? Did he really have the right to rescind the Pau trade? Did Kobe and Shaq get special treatment against the Kings? Did the Knicks with Ewing? Did the Heat break any rules in formation of the superfriends? How about OKC and their move from Seattle? Did Stern even want Seattle to have a team? These are all innocuous events, but when you couple them together and examine Stern's attitude it seems more suspicious than it should be.
Stern is going H.A.M. on his way out. I expect him to give some half assed speech when presenting the Finals Trophy and just drop the mic and walk away.
Stern is a very sharp man. He is a former high level attorney and was well aware that his response is a common tactic taught in law school and utilized in depositions. He cut off the follow up line of questions that he really wanted to avoid.
Rome was only asking what's on plenty of NBA fans minds. I think it was totally legitimate if you are interviewing the commissioner of a sports league on a national radio show. that said, stern completely lawyered Rome to oblivion. he showed his strongarm tactics as displayed over the last 25 years. good riddance when this guy leaves. and to anyone who keeps bringing up Jim Everett: 1994 called...
Exactly, the lawyer smelled a trap and took control of the line of questions to avoid nefarious plot, follow-up questions. I don't see how others say "fair question, just answer it," when it was highly likely Rome was going to pepper the answer with follow-ups to get Stern to squirm, with less interest to honestly get the truth out about the lottery vs fostering the belief of those who believe (seemingly the majority of Rome listeners) that Stern rigs the lottery.
i don't particularly hear an overwhelming sentiment among Rome listeners about a conspiracy theory in the NBA, I read more about that stuff here on clutchfans, for that matter... I just think it's a legit question to just get out of the way and let Stern deny it. which he did, by the way, with a one or two word response.
I've practiced law for 12 years and taken more depositions than I can count. We need to stop pretending that it's common that this is done. It's an unresponsive answer. If I asked the question, and this was the response I'd object to the crappy answer and ask it again. Eventually I'd get a real answer to the question or ask the judge to order him to answer the question. More to the point, this was not a deposition. It was an interview. Certainly Stern is aware that there is a perception that the draft is rigged. There's a substantive answer to that question, including saying it's ridiculous and unfounded, that comes off a lot better than trying to give a cute non-response.
It's Rome's fault for not politely laughing it off and telling him that he didn't answer the question and then ask him for a real answer. If you don't have the balls to follow through to an answer then don't ask the question.
You would have failed. The question was: "... was the fix in for the lottery?" Your question is loaded and would have been objected to with: "Objection: Assuming Facts not in Evidence" It was loaded with insinuation that such a thing as a "fix" exists. It's like asking secret govt scientist: Was the alien in your laboratory? What does "No" mean to a question that assumes facts like an "alien" and a "fix" exist to warrant even answering the question. The phrasing is not a question that would have to be answered in a deposition. In legal terms, your question would be objected to until you establish that such a thing as an "alien" or a "lottery fix" exists. Rome: But how? Stern: Because it is. Rome: But why? Stern: Because it's impossible. Rome: Why? Stern: Because I say so. Rome: Why? Stern: Would you just leave me alone. Rome: Why? Stern: I have to go now and talk to someone important like Stephen A Smith Rome: Quit dodging my question Stern: Do you still beat your wife? See, it would have wound up the same no matter how you answer Rome's loaded question.
What follow up questions could've been asked that would've produced a worse reaction than Stern's petulant response to this question? "Why isn't it televised?" "Well Jim, it's not televised for the same reason MTV doesn't show music videos - no one would watch it. It's really a very dull process - you've got representatives from every team in a small room, along with the fine people of Ernst and Young there to assure the validity of the process - and then we draw a couple balls out of a hopper. If some network wants to give us some air time to show that, I suppose we could see about it - but when you've got such exciting Playoff series going on - culminating in this great NBA Finals between Oklahoma City and Miami - it's hard to convince a network to spend air time showing ping-pong balls coming out of a hopper. " Concerns persist about the lottery because the lottery process isn't widely known. Stern had an opportunity to educate Rome's audience about the lottery and the process' in place to guarantee fair play - instead he gave a petulant response, took a cheap shot at Rome and left the interview. So everyone who went into that interview thinking the lottery process was rigged now has confirmation in the form of the Commissioner's petulant, defensive response. Edit: Apparently the word of the day is petulant.
You could not be more wrong. It assumes no facts...yes/no questions aren't assuming the fact in question...they're asking to have the very fact answered in the affirmative or negative. In legal terms, the objection to my question would be overruled. How was the breakfast bar at the Holiday Inn Express this morning?
