Carlisle Questions NBA’s Decision To Fine Pacers; League Responds

2:34 pm: An NBA spokesperson issued a statement to Sam Amick of The Athletic (Twitter link) to push back against Carlisle’s framing of the investigation into the Pacers.

“Coach Carlisle’s description of the process that went into the decision to fine the Indiana Pacers is inaccurate,” the spokesperson said. “An independent physician led the medical review. In addition, the Pacers’ general manager and the team’s senior vice president (of) sports medicine and performance were interviewed as part of the process. The Pacers confirmed that it had provided all of the information requested by the league and the team reported that an interview with Coach Carlisle or a team physician wasn’t necessary.”

1:36 pm: The Pacers were one of two teams fined by the NBA ahead of the All-Star break for the manner in which they were managing their players. While Indiana’s $100K fine paled in comparison to the $500K penalty the Jazz received, commissioner Adam Silver‘s statement at the time suggested that the league believed both clubs were prioritizing “draft position over winning.”

The Pacers were disciplined for holding out Pascal Siakam and two other players for a February 3 game against Utah. According to the league’s statement, the NBA determined, with the help of an independent physician, that all three could have played in the game, perhaps in reduced roles.

The league fined Indiana for violating the league’s player participation policy, noting in its statement that the Pacers also could have held out those players in other games in order to better promote compliance with the policy.

Pacers head coach Rick Carlisle didn’t address the fine at length at the time it happened, but he was more open about it during a radio appearance on 107.5 The Fan on Tuesday, making it clear to Kevin Bowen and James Boyd that he didn’t think the NBA made the right call (Twitter video link).

“I didn’t agree with it,” Carlisle said (story via Boyd for The Athletic). “There was a league lawyer that was doing the interview that kind of unilaterally decided that Aaron Nesmith, who had been injured the night before and couldn’t hold the ball, should have played in the game, which just seems ridiculous.

“During the interview process – I was not on it, but I heard details – we asked them if they wanted to talk to the doctors, our doctors, about it because it was something that was documented by our doctors and trainers. They said no, they didn’t need to. They talked to their doctors, who did not examine Aaron Nesmith. And we asked them if they wanted to talk to (Nesmith), and they said, no, they didn’t need to.

“This was shocking to me. And during the interview, they also asked if we considered medicating him to play in a game when we were 30 games under .500. So I was very surprised. Obviously didn’t agree with it.”

It’s worth noting that Siakam (who sat out on Feb. 3 due to “rest”) was the only player specifically named in the NBA’s statement, and he meets the criteria of a “star” under the player participation policy. So if the league felt that the Pacers’ management of Siakam violated the policy, it could make the case for a $100K fine (the penalty for a first-time offender) without requiring any additional reasons.

Still, the NBA’s statement suggested the league determined that two additional starters held out of that Feb. 3 game – believed to be Nesmith (left hand strain) and Andrew Nembhard (low back injury management) – were healthy enough to play. Carlisle’s comments call into question how the NBA made that determination and whether or not it was accurate.