Michael Alter, principal owner of Chicago Sky, spoke about the decision to eject and ban Enes Kanter Freedom from Wintrust Arena. Alter addressed the incident without prior warning, likening it to a situation where immediate action is necessary for safety.
“He wasn’t given a warning because certain threats don’t get warnings. To use an extreme example, when you shoot a gun at someone, you don’t get a warning, ‘Don’t do that again.’ It’s, you know, your action doesn’t deserve a warning.”
The decision to label Freedom a threat came as he moved towards the court during the game. Security presence was significant, including arena security and the Chicago Police. Alter described it as one of the quickest decisions for a game ejection he’s witnessed.
Video footage shows Freedom approaching the court but being stopped by security. Alter noted that while Freedom claimed not to step on the court, the security acted swiftly to prevent further escalation.
Freedom contended he should’ve received a warning, referencing the WNBA Fan Code, which mandates ejection for attempts to enter the court. Alter insisted some threats warrant immediate response, paralleling it with extreme scenarios requiring no warnings.
The confrontation began after Freedom cheered for Fever player Sophie Cunningham, prompting a remark from Natasha Cloud of the Sky. Alter confirmed Cloud’s involvement in the exchange but said it had no bearing on the disciplinary actions against Freedom.
Alter detailed discussions with independent spectators. These conversations led him to conclude that Freedom initiated the verbal exchange with Cloud through basketball trash talk, escalating into further back-and-forth communication.
No audio was available to verify spectators’ testimonies. Yet, discrepancies arose as one spectator noted a different chain of events. Cloud’s responsibility in the incident was deemed irrelevant to Freedom’s conduct, according to Alter.
Despite rumors of Pagliocca telling Freedom to enjoy the game, a text exchange explicitly showed acknowledgment of his attendance but not such an invitation. Alter argued this text signaled potential trouble due to its phrasing.
Freedom’s manager provided advance notice, yet Alter interpreted the text as implying possible disruption. The phrasing was seen as a subtle alert rather than a straightforward warning.
The decision not to inform players about Freedom’s attendance was an oversight Alter acknowledged, although knowing sooner might not have altered the decision to permit Freedom inside.
The text exchange and subsequent interpretations showcase differing views on Freedom’s intentions, highlighting varying conclusions from involved parties.
Leave a Reply