The leaps some of you are willing to make to exonerate Smart - in the face of contradictory evidence - are quite amazing.
Pardon me, but in these situations I think it's probably better to support the person who doesn't have every societal advantage I can think of already working in his favor.
So you advocate supporting people or not based upon their race.
Here's a crazy thought. You could remain neutral in the absence of facts and let them move you as they come in.
I'm suggesting that there are inherent biases in favor of the rich white man yelling in the stand at work already, and so it would be best to push ourselves to have some empathy and sympathy for the young black man being heckled and now made out to be a hoodlum because he allowed a likely racist blowhard get the better of him.
I guess I agree with others that, in the absence of evidence, it's hard to project the guy as "likely racist".
My guess is that, in terms of inherent biases, most people on this blog would already empathize with the young athlete over the rich booster. However, labeling the guy who was pushed as a racist, when the only audio evidence we have supports his story, just seems like buying into a pre-conceived notion (much like repeating the "Go back to Africa" thing, which the article IP posted above pretty much debunked as nothing more than amateur lip-reading.
I agree with Mencius: it's best to wait for the facts to come out. What we know so far, in terms of facts, are that the fan has a history of being a loud mouth and the player has a history of at least one recent over-the-top angry outburst. That being the case, I'd say it's 50/50 in terms of whose story to believe here.