So do you or do you not admit that what you’re advocating for is that professional athletes be punished if they fail to control what their significant others say?

Got it. So you’re a complete fucking moron. Thanks for letting me know! You think it’s a good idea to implement a policy that REQUIRES a professional athlete to control what his significant other says and, if he fails to, to punish him because he failed to keep her in line and she stepped out. Again...you think a…

“I said he he signed up to be a representative of his team and league. By extension she ALSO signed up for that when she married him.”

Be pleased? No. Just think “it’s fine?” No. But that’s not what we’re talking about. No one is saying the NBA has to be pleased with her tweets or think her accusations are “fine.”

When Steph threw his mouthpiece, it reflected poorly on Andre Iguadola?

This post literally makes no sense. You say he signed up to be punished for what his wife says, but acknowledge that he can’t be pumished because of the CBA he signed onto. Stop being a moron, pick a consistent, amd we’ll talk.

So then you think the NBA should....fine Curry for something his wife said? Suspend him?

I never asked for media reports. I asked whether it happened all the time, as YOU claimed. You responded with ONE example you have personal knowledge of. So you basically have no idea whether it happens all the time. And now you’re saying it’s rare.

Oh wow! You know TWO cases! 2=all the time!

Really? It happens all the time that people get fired because of something their spouse says?

You’re going to take some kind of an action against an employee because of something their spouse says?

No, referring to Smith.

It was a silly stupid thing she said. Sure. How does it reflect poorly on Steph? It doesn’t, unless you think that reflects his opinions, or that he dictates what she tweets.

She knew she was going to provoke a response like that.

You’re arguing with the substance of what he said. I’m just telling you, yes, he meant exactly what he said, because that is what you asked.

He means exactly what he says, that refs shouldn’t be affecting the game by calling cheap fouls on the best players, the players whose performance will determine the outcome of the game. I mean, you can quibble with whether Steph’s fouls were cheap, or whether refs should call the game differently for stars, but I’m…

I think they think losses and ejections feel “weird” because they happen so rarely, but sure, it could be because they are the rich man’s Harlem Globetrotters or whatever the hell point you are trying to make.

Uh, do you know what “dozens” means? Because that list looks like he beat about 6 HOFers.

Yeah, the fact that you typed that second sentence, apoarently unironically, invalidates anything else you have to say.

“How can players say no to this?”