Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[Just Me]

I've been thinking about the report which the Vikings only agreed to release the 'Executive Summary' Both sides seem to agree on that. According to this source, however, Halunen said the executive summary he was referring to in the email is the same as the 150-page document he is now trying to get in court, adding that he and Madel were only discussing the omission of report footnotes and interview transcripts that would bring sensitive personal information to light.

Definition of Executive Summary (Wikipedia Source:

An executive summary, sometimes known as a management summary, is a short document or section of a document, produced for business purposes, that summarizes a longer report or proposal or a group of related reports in such a way that readers can rapidly become acquainted with a large body of material without having to read it all. It usually contains a brief statement of the problem or proposal covered in the major document(s), background information, concise analysis and main conclusions. It is intended as an aid to decision-making by managers and has been described as possibly the most important part of a business plan.[3] They must be short and to the point.

I'm not even going to go into whether or not Halunen is being 'genuine' with his belief that an executive summary is the same as the report. It's not. Even if Halunen actually believes that, it's understandable the Vikings do not.

Kluwe has been vindicated in the report (no matter how you slice it). His motivations, noble or nefarious, are irrelevant. His allegations (as confirmed by both sides) are accurate and even if Priefer somehow made them in a context that was "not intended to be hateful," everyone knows you can't "make jokes" (not suggesting that is what happened - I'm deliberately using the set of hypothetical circumstances most beneficial to Priefer for a reason) about these types of things. IOW, Priefer should have known better even if there was no ill-intent on his part. The fact that he initially denied the claims and then admitted them after others confirmed what Kluwe had alleged, speaks to his character. Suffice to say, there will be more 'dirt' coming out from both sides in this matter. Some will point to Priefer's actions as the problem. Others will point to Kluwe as not being without shortcomings in this area, and allege he is a hypocrite. These discussions will continue on with no real changing of minds on the matter. So, I'm going to leave that there.

My purpose was to set up the context for the question I want to ask: Should the Vikings release the report?

In full disclosure: I initially believed they should. I agreed with many who suggested that if the Vikings did not release the report it was tantamount to saying that Kluwes allegations were (at the very least) accurate as lodged, and quite possibly much worse. I'm not sure that I feel much differently now, but as I give the situation further consideration, I'm wondering if it might be in both parties best interests NOT to release the report. It has nothing to do with protecting the Vikings reputation (or Kluwe's reputation). It has to do with the future "chilling" effect that the release of the report might have on further acts of misconduct in the NFL.

Here's what I mean: I'm the GM of the new NFL Expansion team the Iowa Cornstalks. A similar situation comes up where allegations of gender orientation discrimination comes up in the locker room. I could stick my head in the sand and deal 'only' with the one example I am aware of (thereby 'addressing' the problem). Or, I could conduct a massive investigation to actually determine if there is an 'organizational culture' issue at work. Problem: Since the 'dirty laundry' is going to be aired it is in my team's best interests to keep the investigation as 'small as possible.' I certainly don't want to make it seem like I have a team of homophobes, I need to sell as many season tickets as possible and Iowa is not a very populated state. I need to avoid alienating as few people as possible.

I'd rather have the public think I had 1 rogue member of my staff that went over the line, than a whole team of personnel engaged in misconduct. So, instead of getting to the bottom of the issue and finding out if it's just one (or half the team). I play it safe. I conduct a perfunctory investigation to cover myself and 'minimize the damage.' The last team that actually conducted a thorough investigation had the entire report released to the public. The report revealed other issues that management addressed but would have preferred not to be 'public knowledge'. Worse, more player's reputations were tarnished which inhibited players from being candid with future investigations, since their comments (supposedly made to the investigators in confidence) were released on ESPN.

I other words, if this report is released, it might inhibit (or reduce the needed scope) of future incidents of misconduct, regardless of the type of misconduct it may be. I can't assert unequivocally that the report shouldn't be released, but it seems to me Kluwe has won. The allegations he made have been sustained. Forcing a complete disclosure seems to be 'dropping nuclear weapons' when he has already won the 'conventional war'. OTOH, Mike Priefer is to blame for the situation being this big. If he admitted he made the statement(s), there would have been no need to conduct the investigation to begin with.

Thoughts on whether or not Kluwe should remain steadfast in his desire to see the entire report released?

[Just Me]

Depends on who is reporting it.

Ha. But that was my point: In my world it makes No difference who is reporting it. I want to know more info...

[Just Me]

That's a good way to illustrate the importance of context.

Speaking of context, according to the memorandum:
That differs significantly from Kluwe's version of events, in which the comment was made in a meeting, a completely different context from that described by Loeffler, whose recollection that it happened on the practice field seems reinforced by the fact that nobody else recalls hearing the comment in a meeting.

Thanks Jim. I need to read that summary. (I made my comments in the previous post without having read it). My question still stands (as the focus is really tangendental to the whole KLuwe/Priefer situation). Should the Vikings release the report?

[Funkytown]

Great post, Just Me. But this part cracked me up...

Here's what I mean: I'm the GM of the new NFL Expansion team the Iowa Cornstalks.

I'm almost offended. Cornstalks? Ouch.

[Just Me]

Great post, Just Me. But this part cracked me up...
I'm almost offended. Cornstalks? Ouch.

Don't forget: I share your pain

[Mothman]

Kluwe has been vindicated in the report (no matter how you slice it). His motivations, noble or nefarious, are irrelevant. His allegations (as confirmed by both sides) are accurate...

Having read the entire report, I don't see it that way at all. As you'll see when you read it, most of Kluwe's allegations actually proved inaccurate and as you've already seen above, even the allegation that was confirmed (that Priefer did, indeed, make the "nuke" statement) didn't occur in the circumstances described by Kluwe and, according to Loeffler, wasn't even delivered in the tone Kluwe claimed.

I see little vindication for Kluwe at this point. There has been no corroboration of his accusations regarding other statements by Priefer, of his allegations that activism on behalf of marriage equality and equal rights motivated the Vikings to release him or that the Vikings created a hostile work environment on the basis of sexual orientation. even his claims about his punting performance are effectively refuted. After reading the summary, it looks to me like he's facing an increasingly uphill battle.

I'd say Kluwe won the small battle here but has likely lost the war and, for the reasons you provided (and probably more), I think the Vikings are better off keeping the full results of the investigation undisclosed. A judge may not give them that option though, so it will be interesting to see what's happened if/when the lawsuit is actually filed.

[Just Me]

Having read the entire report, I don't see it that way at all. As you'll see when you read it, most of Kluwe's allegations actually proved inaccurate and as you've already seen above, even the allegation that was confirmed (that Priefer did, indeed, make the "nuke" statement) didn't occur in the circumstances described by Kluwe and, according to Loeffler, wasn't even delivered in the tone Kluwe claimed.

I had not read the report. I was referring to the 'correctness' of the actual words spoken by Priefer. (Nuke the gays) - Don't read that as me justifying my statement(s) prior to reading the report. When I read your excerpts, I could see there are some issues still in dispute, so my assertion that his allegationS (which implied, and in fact, was my intent to convey) were confirmed was premature, and perhaps incorrect. I stand corrected here.

However, to bring it back to what IS confirmed (nuking the gays) - I was assuming (to give Priefer the benefit of the doubt) that there was no ill-intent on the comment. It still is an inappropriate comment. Priefer should have known not to make that statement in any context (IMHO).

[Mothman]

I had not read the report. I was referring to the 'correctness' of the actual words spoken by Priefer. (Nuke the gays) - Don't read that as me justifying my statement(s) prior to reading the report. When I read your excerpts, I could see there are some issues still in dispute, so my assertion that his allegationS (which implied, and in fact, was my intent to convey) were confirmed was premature, and perhaps incorrect. I stand corrected here.

However, to bring it back to what IS confirmed (nuking the gays) - I was assuming (to give Priefer the benefit of the doubt) that there was no ill-intent on the comment. It still is an inappropriate comment. Priefer should have known not to make that statement in any context (IMHO).

I agree and consequently, I think the suspension is an appropriate response.

If you have the time, it's worth reading the entire memo. It's 29 pages long, which sounds time-consuming, but it's double-spaced so it actually doesn't take long to read.

[Funkytown]

It's trolling because there's no attempt to contribute anything of substance to the discussion.

We're all guilty of that, though.

He baited and provoked and it's a pattern of behavior he's established over years. By almost any internet definition of trolling, the shoe fits when it comes to Demi.

I thought you were done with bait posts and personal attacks? Naughty, naughty. I think it's only fair if Demi can no longer refer to people as "apologists," people probably shouldn't call him a troll. That's just how I see it. He adds a little flavor to the board! I love trying to decipher his posts. Makes for a good time. lol.

Regarding your comments: I don't think anyone is saying it's "all on Kluwe" although, perhaps more than anyone else involved (except Priefer), Kluwe himself could have handled this a lot better (and considering his tweets last night, he could still be handling it better).

It seems that a lot of blame is put on Kluwe, just because he is who he is. But speaking of those tweets, let's share a few:


@ChrisWarcraft
And yeah, if the Vikings want to play dirty, we can talk about ALL sorts of stuff.

@ChrisWarcraft
Sure I gave my strength coach a hard time. Once. I made a joke about the Sandusky case, because he was a big Penn State guy.

@ChrisWarcraft
Over half the team did it for over a month, including asking him if he "raped any little boys lately," repeatedly, in front of coaches.

@ChrisWarcraft
Oooh, shall we talk about the time two very well known Vikings players were caught in a compromising situation with an underage girl?

(Oh, that's just going to be FANTASTIC to deal with!)

@ChrisWarcraft
Bet you didn't hear about that one in the news. We can do this all day, Vikings. Special teams hears *everything*.

@ChrisWarcraft
But we'll save all that for the trial. It'll be more fun that way.

@ChrisWarcraft
Don't worry folks, you'll know when I'm on tilt. The Vikings clearly think turning this dirty will scare me off. Says all you need to know.

@ChrisWarcraft
Also interesting how so many are willing to follow the Vikings' false lead with the leak about me, and not the admission of Priefer's guilt.

@ChrisWarcraft
People, please remember that I choose my words very carefully. Assumptions are your enemy.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/7/18/5 ... er-vikings

It seems to me the team has taken a pretty good, and pretty smart, approach. It's not perfect but they reacted swiftly to the accusations, hired respected third parties to investigate and a highly qualified third party to assess and evaluate the results of that investigation. They instructed them to be objective and the team did not engage in public mudslinging or attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion. They took their time, tried to get an accurate understanding of the situation and then released an assessment (the Littler memo). They took what they obviously feel is appropriate action to reprimand Priefer and made a substantial charitable contribution they were under no obligation to make. Maybe they'll release the complete results of the investigation at some point too, which would be nice, but of those involved, it seems to me the Vikings have taken the higher, and more responsible, road.

Well, I definitely disagree. If even an OUNCE of Kluwe being let go had to do with him being a "distraction," what would you call Priefer at this point? The truth is, Priefer could have been let go by the Vikings like the rest of the coaching staff and no one would have given it a second thought. Instead, they choose to keep him around (knowing about the nonsense soon to follow), and now we have all of this. Look at those tweets! It's going to get ugly! If the Vikings hadn't kept him around, I think this would have been dealt with a long time ago. I mean, at this point, the Vikings are forced to defend their employee. If Priefer had been let go, how much would the Vikings even had to be involved? Sure, this would have been going on in the background, but not on the level that it is now, as they are going to face questions/criticism for keeping him after those remarks were confirmed, keeping him after he repeatedly lied, keeping the distraction that they supposedly didn't like with Kluwe, etc. Also, they are dealing with a lawsuit that probably would have NEVER happened if they weren't working so hard to defend an employee and battle with those negotiations (suspension time, training, etc.). A lot of these things would have been non-issues. The Vikings are putting way too much effort into keeping this guy around. And now it is going to get worse than ever, with Kluwe feeling tempted to let EVERYTHING out! That's NOT what is best for the team. It never was. So, I agree with Demi. Priefer should have been moved on from a LONG time ago and this would have went away much, much sooner. The Vikings could have minimized the "distractions" but they chose the hard way.

This is going to suck in the short-term, but maybe it's better for the long-term. Let's just get it all out, and move on. Get some of that "accountability" that Demi has been so desperately seeking. Maybe this team needs to hit rock bottom. The Vikings could learn a few things about being a respectable football team, on and off the field.

[Just Me]

Kluwe bashed that congressman and he has bashed Fundamentalist Christians. For all we know, he could have rubbed this in Priefer's face and he sounds like he, Priefer, could be a Fundamentalist type and Priefer to be sarcastic made his remarks, to fullfill a stereotype or something. Sounds plausible.

I don't think Kluwe's comments (the one's I know he made) were appropriate, either. That's one of the reasons I don't really like some of Kluwe's actions or how he conducts himself. But, it doesn't justify irresponsible behavior by others. Even if the context is exactly as described it still represents poor judgment on the part of the coach (manager). You simply can't joke about these kinds of things.

[Funkytown]

I don't think Kluwe's comments (the one's I know he made) were appropriate, either. That's one of the reasons I don't really like some of Kluwe's actions or how he conducts himself. But, it doesn't justify irresponsible behavior by others. Even if the context is exactly as described it still represents poor judgment on the part of the coach (manager). You simply can't joke about these kinds of things.

Exactly. This whole, "Well, Kluwe started it..." argument is silly. Does that make Priefer any less responsible for his own words? No. That whole, "Well, he made me do it..." argument stopped working for me in Elementary School. I'm disappointed about it, too. I didn't realize that we could still use that well into adulthood, especially in professional settings. I'll keep that in mind. I'll let ya know if it works at my workplace or not.

[Mothman]

Well, I definitely disagree. If even an OUNCE of Kluwe being let go had to do with him being a "distraction," what would you call Priefer at this point? The truth is, Priefer could have been let go by the Vikings like the rest of the coaching staff and no one would have given it a second thought. Instead, they choose to keep him around (knowing about the nonsense soon to follow), and now we have all of this.

Most of it was probably coming anyway. Kluwe's accusations were out there and the investigation was underway before Zimmer was hired and consequently, long before he chose to keep Priefer on his staff.

If Priefer had been let go, how much would the Vikings even had to be involved?

I don't know but probably almost exactly as much, minus the need to discipline Priefer. The investigation would still have been necessary and Kluwe and his lawyer would probably still have demands of some sort and they'd probably still be dangling the threat of a lawsuit out there.

A lot of these things would have been non-issues. The Vikings are putting way too much effort into keeping this guy around. And now it is going to get worse than ever, with Kluwe feeling tempted to let EVERYTHING out! That's NOT what is best for the team. It never was.

I don't think simply buckling to the accusations and demands of a litigious former employee is what was best for the team.

So, I agree with Demi. Priefer should have been moved on from a LONG time ago and this would have went away much, much sooner. The Vikings could have minimized the "distractions" but they chose the hard way.

... or, by keeping him around, they made sure he was accessible during the course of the investigation and enabled themselves to actually act and discipline him when the evidence showed that was necessary. They also get to keep a special teams coach their new head coach seems to want on his staff.

[Purple bruise]

Most of it was probably coming anyway. Kluwe's accusations were out there and the investigation was underway before Zimmer was hired and consequently, long before he chose to keep Priefer on his staff.
I don't know but probably almost exactly as much, minus the need to discipline Priefer. The investigation would still have been necessary and Kluwe and his lawyer would probably still have demands of some sort and they'd probably still be dangling the threat of a lawsuit out there.
I don't think simply buckling to the accusations and demands of a litigious former employee is what was best for the team.
... or, by keeping him around, they made sure he was accessible during the course of the investigation and enabled themselves to actually act and discipline him when the evidence showed that was necessary. They also get to keep a special teams coach their new head coach seems to want on his staff.

Dang Jim, Quit be so logical.

[Just Me]

If you have the time, it's worth reading the entire memo. It's 29 pages long, which sounds time-consuming, but it's double-spaced so it actually doesn't take long to read.

I read the Executive Summary of the report. It confirmed only the "nuke the gays" statement (1 time) and found there was no evidence of a pervasive atmosphere of homophobia (my paraphrase). It actually is pretty thorough in how it addressed Kluwe's allegations that his punting had not declined. The summary did not agree with Kluwe's assessment that he was released for other than football reasons. I would think Kluwe will have a tough road here if he proceeds with that part of his lawsuit.

This article seems to contradict Halunen's assertion that both sides agreed to release the "whole report". (Emphasis added was mine)

In an email obtained from a source close to the situation, Kluwe's representation suggested against bringing the full report to light. The email, sent from Clayton Halunen to Christopher Madel, a Minneapolis attorney that was one of the people conducting the investigation, on July 8th is an attempt to convince Kluwe to allow the findings to stay private.

"The more I think about it I believe it would be a mistake [to go public] for a number of reasons," Halunen said. "First, the Vikings have never made any commitment to make any investigation report public. The only commitment made was that my client's allegations would be thoroughly investigated."

The email went on to say that public disclosure could open "Pandora's box".

"I think a much more prudent course of action would be to provide some sort of Executive Summary that would provide the public with the substantive findings and recommendations."

Two observations:

1) "sources close to the investigation" are always a little suspect; but
2) The executive summary seems to be (again) the agreed upon disclosure.

So, depending on the credibility you want to give to "sources close to the investigation, " it might suggest Kluwe's camp is changing the rules as we go along.


I will say that Kluwe's tweets about the alleged underage girl are a little disconcerting. I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt (that works for him and Priefer, equally) on why him not reporting the issue on the inappropriate comments by Priefer makes sense with him not wanting to be "blackballed," but I'm curious on his justification for waiting until now to report the alleged "compromising situation with an underage[d] girl."

[Raptorman]

I did notice one thing about the report. Only 4 players were ever interviewed. Walsh, Kluwe, Longwell and Loeffler. So if more things were said outside of Kluwes range with other players we will never know about it. Good way to limit things. It does look like the interviewed the entire office staff however.

The Vikings can make this go away by simply releasing the full 150 page report. Take the wind out of Kluwes sails. Throwing mud at someone who has been with the team for so long will only cause more trouble. He knows to many things that went on behind the scenes. And the worst part is that the accusations will do enough damage. Example: The two Viking players caught with an under age girl. That one won't be going away for a while.