Robert Sarver is in Big Trouble (ANNOUNCES SALE PROCESS)

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

In regard to numbers, in the Baxter Holmes article at ESPN dated 11-4-2021, I noticed the words a "half-dozen" used twice and a "dozen" used twice.

Looking at the second paragraph below, this would seem to indicate more than 12 different different people mentioned at least one of the allegations.

Below are snippets from the article:


At least a half-dozen Suns staffers recounted to ESPN instances of Sarver hearing a story from a Black player and then using the same language when retelling it, down to the usage of the N-word.

-------------------------------------------------------

More than a dozen employees recalled Sarver making lewd comments in all-staff meetings, including discussing times when his wife would perform oral sex on him. Four former employees said that in several all-staff meetings Sarver claimed he needed to wear Magnum or extra-large condoms. Former employees said he asked players about their sex lives and the sexual prowess of their significant others.
----------------------------------------------------------

A current executive is among nearly a dozen who acknowledges seeking professional help to cope with anxiety, sleep loss and overall declining well-being working for the Suns.
----------------------------------------------------------

Although a few explored legal action, there were more who did not. Half a dozen former employees said they didn't pursue a lawsuit because they didn't have the financial resources for a legal battle to do so, or felt so worn down from their experience that they just wanted to move on.

Allegations of racism and misogyny within the Phoenix Suns: Inside Robert Sarver's 17-year tenure as owner

An ESPN investigation, featuring interviews with more than 70 current and former Suns employees, reveals accusations of racism and misogyny against owner Robert Sarver -- and a toxic workplace many employees believe his behavior emboldened.

www.espn.com

That starts to help establishing estimates. The question then arises are all those 6’s and 12’s overlapped or separate individuals. Seems somewhat coincidental (maybe not) that it’s almost almost the same “half a dozen” or “dozen” that’s used. Pure conjecture: would lead me to believe it’s potentially same subgroup discussing multiple situations.

 

[JCSunsfan]

The NBA investigation into these allegations may be the single best opportunity for the NBA and the other owners of the Suns to replace Sarver. Also I think ESPN has played it's hand as well. If Sarver survives this, I don't think he is leaving until he decides to sell. No more aces to play.

I'm thinking the workplace environment allegations may be the best chance if it happens unless the players rebel for some reason but that would have probably happened if it were going to happen.

IMO, Sarver has made enough enemies over the years there is a lot of support to replace him. The question in my mind, do the allegations provide enough cover (justification) to do it? Cumulatively I think they do as well but it's not the smoking gun they wanted.

There is a chance that if he does remain it will be with conditions from the NBA. So maybe, just maybe, we get a better Sarver even if he doesn't leave.

Or he could feel vindicated and emboldened. The real power is with the players. I do believe Sarver wants to win.

 

[Phrazbit]

There is a chance that if he does remain it will be with conditions from the NBA. So maybe, just maybe, we get a better Sarver even if he doesn't leave.

Or he could feel vindicated and emboldened. The real power is with the players. I do believe Sarver wants to win.

I just can't see it playing out that way. If the NBA sanctions Sarver in anyway, whatsoever then negotiating with players and agents will put us in a perpetual disadvantage. The smear will hang over forever.

The Suns success will require Sarver to be totally vindicated or for the league or Sarver's co-owners to strip him of any level of authority.

If things get any worse (or if the players start to doubt him) I hope Sarver has the leadership (or self awareness) to step back and relinquish his role as the managing general partner. If not then the co-owners need to force him out.

 

[Mainstreet]

There is a chance that if he does remain it will be with conditions from the NBA. So maybe, just maybe, we get a better Sarver even if he doesn't leave.

Or he could feel vindicated and emboldened. The real power is with the players. I do believe Sarver wants to win.

If the NBA puts conditions on Sarver or the Suns that would likely indicate they have found something. Hopefully this would be enough for the other owners to step-in and make a change. It's hard to see the Suns operating in a state of limbo.

I can't see the NBA vindicating or clearing Sarver and the Suns of everything. Too much mud has been thrown at the wall for nothing to stick.

 

[elindholm]

You’re focused too much on the “named sources” angle which I’m not even debating.

What do you think the “scope” is all about? You said it yourself, the number of interviewees is crucial for credibility. They use the number of interviewees to convince the reader it’s a lot of people making allegations. If they said “we interviewed 70 people and 10 made allegations” it would undercut the magnitude of the article. By throwing out the 70 and not stating how made accusations or corroboration they’re counting on the reader getting caught up in the 70 number. Heck we’ve seen a bunch of posters here anchor to that number incorrectly. It works. And it’s intentionally sensational.

It's shocking to me that, in 2021, some people still go straight to undermining the credibility of those who bring up this type of complaint.

 

[Covert Rain]

Lol your deductive reasoning is flat out terrible. There’s not a single statement I’ve made that points in any direction other than we have zero idea what the number could be. I get it, you think a lot of people came out against sarver. I think that’s possible but we actually have zero idea how many people due to how the article was written.

Says the guy that assumes everybody takes the 70 number literally and is falling for something. LOL. Tell me Sherlock was does "a lot of people" even mean?! We are a basically saying the same thing which is why I have no idea why this is even an issue. The only reason the 70 number is being mentioned by people is because that high of a number raises the likelihood it's not just Watson and McDonough being the only ones on "record". I have seen literally nobody here say they actually believe 70 people are making 70 statements on record. As stated none of us has any idea the details behind the report.

To establish the scope, as I said. The number of interviewees connected to the organization is crucial for credibility, especially for investigations that rely on anonymous sources. If the scope weren’t included people—especially the subject—would be even more likely to claim that it’s just hearsay from a few bitter individuals. Seventy interviews is a LOT.

A journalist or publication would always prefer named sources, and this story would be strengthened with more. But these investigations would barely exist if only named sources were possible.

Again, unless ESPN's legal team is completely incompetent there is no way they let this story fly without "some" people on record and likely with corroboration or at the very least multiple people reporting a "like" pattern. It could be 5 people and could be 10 people. Who knows. If this was simply coming from 1 or 2 people and ESPN ran with it? They deserve to get sued by Sarver regardless of him being a horrible person. They obviously were angling for sensationalizing the story with the number thrown out there but as you stated WHO, the level of corroboration and establishing any patterns is going to be huge here.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

It's shocking to me that, in 2021, some people still go straight to undermining the credibility of those who bring up this type of complaint.

Well all we have heard so far is comments from ex employees that have a bone to pick with the owner. Doesn't mean they are lying, but it does mean there may be some cause to question the validity of the claims.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Well all we have heard so far is comments from ex employees that have a bone to pick with the owner. Doesn't mean they are lying, but it does mean there may be some cause to question the validity of the claims.

True but the reporter would likely have moved onto dirtier pastures if there wasn't some real meat to the story beyond what's come out from Watson.

I think the NBA's investigation will find support for it being a toxic workplace, whether it's "toxic" enough to intercede, I have no idea. But if there's credible corroboration for the racist claims, that will seal the deal quickly.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

True but the reporter would likely have moved onto dirtier pastures if there wasn't some real meat to the story beyond what's come out from Watson.

I think the NBA's investigation will find support for it being a toxic workplace, whether it's "toxic" enough to intercede, I have no idea. But if there's credible corroboration for the racist claims, that will seal the deal quickly.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like there aren't a lot of reporters nowadays that will release a half baked story. If I had to bet I would assume something will come of all of this, but at the moment it is a bit suspect. At least in the sense of whether or not it will amount to a whole lot.

 

[Mainstreet]

The NBA stepped in so quickly to do an investigation on Robert Sarver and the Suns makes me think they were aware of the allegations before ESPN ever released the story.

 

[Covert Rain]

The NBA stepped in so quickly to do an investigation on Robert Sarver and the Suns makes me think they were aware of the allegations before ESPN ever released the story.

I thought I read somewhere that the NBA was aware that the story was coming out and likely had the outline. They wouldn't have needed all the details.

 

[Mainstreet]

I thought I read somewhere that the NBA was aware that the story was coming out and likely had the outline. They wouldn't have needed all the details.

The NBA wouldn't do an investigation if they didn't think there was good cause. I'm sure they had more than an outline going in.

 

[Covert Rain]

The NBA wouldn't do an investigation if they didn't think there was good cause. I'm sure they had more than an outline going in.

Agree but they had plenty of lead time to make a decision after the story was published. Especially, if they knew it was coming.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

It's shocking to me that, in 2021, some people still go straight to undermining the credibility of those who bring up this type of complaint.

Who is undermining credibility? Not me. I’m commenting on a journalists tactic. No comment on the actual allegations other than my statement that I prettt much believe all of them.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Says the guy that assumes everybody takes the 70 number literally and is falling for something. LOL. Tell me Sherlock was does "a lot of people" even mean?! We are a basically saying the same thing which is why I have no idea why this is even an issue. The only reason the 70 number is being mentioned by people is because that high of a number raises the likelihood it's not just Watson and McDonough being the only ones on "record". I have seen literally nobody here say they actually believe 70 people are making 70 statements on record. As stated none of us has any idea the details behind the report.


Again, unless ESPN's legal team is completely incompetent there is no way they let this story fly without "some" people on record and likely with corroboration or at the very least multiple people reporting a "like" pattern. It could be 5 people and could be 10 people. Who knows. If this was simply coming from 1 or 2 people and ESPN ran with it? They deserve to get sued by Sarver regardless of him being a horrible person. They obviously were angling for sensationalizing the story with the number thrown out there but as you stated WHO, the level of corroboration and establishing any patterns is going to be huge here.

Lol. Hyperbole, the final gasp of a losing argument. Obviously I don’t believe “everyone” believes the 70 as I do not and several other people here have agreed. But unlike your false claim, there have been a number of posters that HAVE used the 70 number.

And who the heck has thrown around “1 or 2” I’ve said it’s POSSIBLE it could be 6-12 but keep on making up statements to argue against. I don’t understand why it’s difficult for some posters to address actual statements other posters make. It’s okay to disagree with me, but if you do I ask you stick to what I’ve actually said.

 

[Cheesebeef]

good gravy, you guys are boring this bored to death.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

True but the reporter would likely have moved onto dirtier pastures if there wasn't some real meat to the story beyond what's come out from Watson.

I think the NBA's investigation will find support for it being a toxic workplace, whether it's "toxic" enough to intercede, I have no idea. But if there's credible corroboration for the racist claims, that will seal the deal quickly.

I agree with this. If it was just the watsons on the world the author would’ve kept looking for a better story. There’s definitely something there, we just don’t know the full depth of it.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

The NBA wouldn't do an investigation if they didn't think there was good cause. I'm sure they had more than an outline going in.

Disagree. Once an article like that is out at a minimum they have to tell the public they’re investigating. Even if they don’t think there’s anything there.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

good gravy, you guys are boring this bored to death.

You misspelled “board” ya b oob

 

[Mainstreet]

Disagree. Once an article like that is out at a minimum they have to tell the public they’re investigating. Even if they don’t think there’s anything there.

I think it's more about the allegations contained in the article rather than just the article but I don't see much difference in our positions.

 

[Western Font]

You’re focused too much on the “named sources” angle which I’m not even debating.

What do you think the “scope” is all about? You said it yourself, the number of interviewees is crucial for credibility. They use the number of interviewees to convince the reader it’s a lot of people making allegations. If they said “we interviewed 70 people and 10 made allegations” it would undercut the magnitude of the article. By throwing out the 70 and not stating how made accusations or corroboration they’re counting on the reader getting caught up in the 70 number. Heck we’ve seen a bunch of posters here anchor to that number incorrectly. It works. And it’s intentionally sensational.

It’s not sensational, intentionally or otherwise. The article states that 70 interviews “describe a toxic and sometimes hostile workplace under Sarver.” The article bears that out: read it again and make an educated guess about how many people contributed to the point. It seems like you think you’re catching me with my own words but my point has not changed.

 

[Covert Rain]

Lol. Hyperbole, the final gasp of a losing argument. Obviously I don’t believe “everyone” believes the 70 as I do not and several other people here have agreed. But unlike your false claim, there have been a number of posters that HAVE used the 70 number.

And who the heck has thrown around “1 or 2” I’ve said it’s POSSIBLE it could be 6-12 but keep on making up statements to argue against. I don’t understand why it’s difficult for some posters to address actual statements other posters make. It’s okay to disagree with me, but if you do I ask you stick to what I’ve actually said.

Talk about last gasp attempt. So basically you have been commenting on people bringing up 70 for absolutely nothing. Literally nobody believed the 70 number that I can see in relation to being on “record” which in itself is nebulous.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

It’s not sensational, intentionally or otherwise. The article states that 70 interviews “describe a toxic and sometimes hostile workplace under Sarver.” The article bears that out: read it again and make an educated guess about how many people contributed to the point. It seems like you think you’re catching me with my own words but my point has not changed.

No you’re misstating the article. If that’s what it said it would explicitly state that 70 different people made an allegation or corroboration. It does not state that. Does someone want to tell me again that people aren’t claiming the article states 70 people said bad things? Cuz here’s one in black and white.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Talk about last gasp attempt. So basically you have been commenting on people bringing up 70 for absolutely nothing. Literally nobody believed the 70 number that I can see in relation to being on “record” which in itself is nebulous.

Lol. Read the post literally directly before yours.

 

[Chaplin]

I honestly have no idea what Ouchie and Covert's argument is.