If David Stern had the Gilbert Arenas mess to do over, he'd have channeled his inner Clint Eastwood. In such a target-rich environment, smacking everyone would have been considered fair and judicious.
More Sports

 

Ten days ago, this was a simple story of Arenas being a deadbeat. Then it was Arenas being a deadbeat with guns. Then it was Arenas being a deadbeat with guns that the Washington Wizards allegedly let him store in their publicly financed gymnasium. Then it was Arenas being a deadbeat with guns in the locker room with Javaris Crittenton. Then it was Arenas being a bad comedian with guns. Then it was the Wizards' roster laughing with Arenas. Then it was Crittenton having the bullets.

And today? One shudders to think.

Yes, this could be a cautionary tale about guns in the workplace, or guns as props, or guns used as debt mediators. But when did those become open for discussion? Was there a time when that debate had a pro as well as a con?

No, this is about the length of time between when the incident occurred (on a Dec. 21 flight, by the latest account) and when it became a national to-do, and then when it became worthy of Stern's swift sword.

And while we're at it, why Arenas is still the only one carrying weight here.

Arenas was suspended indefinitely without pay for having four unloaded guns in the Wizards' locker room and daring Crittenton to pick one up. But that wasn't really the reason - Arenas got it the day after he made pantomime guns with his fingers and pretended to shoot his laughing teammates during the pregame introductions in Philadelphia.

That's when Stern threw the entire law library at Arenas.

But since then, stories from alleged eyewitnesses told to Mike Wise of the Washington Post indicate Crittenton also had a gun in a subsequent argument in the locker room on Christmas Eve, and in fact loaded it. And, according to Wise's story, there were other players and a non-uniformed employee described as a trainer in the room when it happened.

And still, only Arenas?

This is not to defend him, or to say his punishment isn't warranted as is. But we have a teamwide nudge-nudge, wink-wink through the entire series of events, all the way through to the pregame joke and the photo that showed the players laughing at it.

There's no turning the clock back, to Stern's dismay. But there is the matter of fully punishing the guilty by taking away their right to participate in all the NBA fun and games, or take sizable amounts of money from those who enjoy them.

Starting with the Wizards, who either signed off on Arenas' gun-storage plan or didn't do anything when they learned of the incident. Whoever gave him permission needs either to be fired, fined or suspended, and if permission wasn't given, basketball operations president Ernie Grunfeld needs to be punished for not responding immediately to a clear violation of the 2005 collective bargaining agreement between the owners and players that covers guns in the workplace.

Then there's Crittenton, who if he had his own piece on the grounds should be getting the Arenas Blue Plate Special too. And if he didn't, there's punishment coming for escalating the argument.

Then there are the players who thought the joke was so hilarious. The Wizards reportedly plan to fine the players, but given its own culpability, it's wrong for the team to try to seize any moral ground here, high or otherwise. The fines should be directed to the league while we wait for the team to face its own version of the music.

And then, you let the law go where it needs to go, since laws were clearly broken. No interference or influence brought to beat from the Wizards or the league - the case goes where the case goes, period.

I mean, if the message here is "We act on this stuff. In fact, we overreact, and we're proud of it." If this is simply a public relations exercise, they should do what they're doing now, and if this is simply a way to get out from beneath Arenas' onerous contract, here's hoping a humiliating defeat is on its way.

Given those parameters, Stern needed, and still needs to bring down an indiscriminate hammer that leaves nobody who has touched this event in any way unscathed.

And why can this cannon-fire approach be defended when in most cases it cannot? Because the violations we know about already have been admitted by the parties involved, and because the team's feckless approach to the problem is clear because of the time line. Fining the locker room witnesses for not coming forward (if in fact they didn't) is reasonable as well, and while fining the players for laughing in the huddle isn't, it's a gesture from Stern that says, "We're not playing here. You might get this overturned by an arbitrator, but you might not, and in either event, you'll know how we're going to play this."

Indiscriminately simple? Maybe so - I mean, lawyers are involved. But every once in a rare while, indiscriminate simplicity can be a virtue, especially when the guilt is so easy to find and the message is so important.

But like we said, Stern can't turn the clock back, and the mess will bubble on for weeks. That's what happens when you wait to do the right thing - there's a chance that you'll have to do the wrong thing to make it look like you want to make it right.

source-http://www.sfgate.com