Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[Mothman]

Columnist Gregg Doyel doesn't pull his punches in this piece on Kluwe:

http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer ... itter-rant

At the end of the column, which is about how Kluwe's snarky tweets about an underage girl in a compromising position and the Sandusky-related stuff in the memo the Vikings issued yesterday, there is an update from the ccolumnist:

Kluwe responded to me on Twitter by providing an email address, and from there a phone number. We spoke, but he wouldn't talk about the "compromising position" involving the "underage girl" -- other than to say I had made an "assumption." To which I said:

"Tell me what happened with the girl, or I'm leaving that part of my story as-is."

Kluwe: "Leave it."

Kluwe did talk about -- and express some regret for -- the Penn State joke.

Kluwe: "That one, the way the report presented it, it was presented in a way designed to make me look bad."

Me: "There's no way to present that without you looking bad."

Kluwe: "The intent was to make fun of the culture of Penn State that allowed that to happen: Do whatever it takes to protect the team. If that offended some people, then yes, I'm sorry for offending those people. I realize some people may not like that sort of humor. If it comes to speaking truth to power, standing up to blind fanaticism, that's what I'm going to do.

As for his battle with the Vikings, Kluwe closed with this:

"I didn't want it to come to this. It's ugly, and it's going to get worse."

At this point, I see no reason at all to believe he didn't want it to come this (lawsuit) or that he didn't want it to get ugly. After all, he made it ugly from the very beginning and he's been threatening a lawsuit since the beginning too. I suspect this is exactly how ugly he wanted it to get and he ddin'tw aste any time diving in in head first after the Vikings released the summary of the investigation yesterday.

His explanation of the "joke" sounds like a weak rationalization to save face.

[Just Me]

Kluwe clearly wants his "pound of flesh":

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11236 ... estigation

So in Kluwe's mind, a charge for an offense (which endangers the life of the player at the very least - not to mention innocent persons) is equally as severe as bigoted words spoken by a coach? Again, Priefer should be punished. But "Bounty-gate," which had coaches taking affirmative steps to actually have players physically injure others, or a DUI where there is a real possibility of a player or innocent bystanders injured or killed are just poor comparisons to make his case IMHO.

[Mothman]

So in Kluwe's mind, a charge for an offense (which endangers the life of the player at the very least - not to mention innocent persons) is equally as severe as bigoted words spoken by a coach?

It's a bit mind-boggling, eh?

Again, Priefer should be punished. But "Bounty-gate," which had coaches taking affirmative steps to actually have players physically injure others, or a DUI where there is a real possibility of a player or innocent bystanders injured or killed are just poor comparisons to make his case IMHO.

I agree but the comparison provides some insight into how Kluwe thinks.

[Raptorman]

It's a bit mind-boggling, eh?
I agree but the comparison provides some insight into how Kluwe thinks.

I think more of Riley Cooper. Believe he was fined by the Eagles and had no suspensions. As to Priefer's suspension. I think they did what they thought they should. Kluwe wants more.

I still think had the Vikings meet the $1 million mark, released the full report and suspended Priefer for 3 games Kluwe would go away.

[Mothman]

I still think had the Vikings meet the $1 million mark, released the full report and suspended Priefer for 3 games Kluwe would go away.

Maybe, but why cave to his demands if they believe they're inaccurate or unreasonable?

A million dollars is a lot of money. I realize NFL teams routinely deal in such large amounts when it comes to player and head coaching contracts but that doesn't mean they're willing to just spend it to satisfy the whims of an angry ex-player.

[DarthBrooks]

I still think had the Vikings meet the $1 million mark, released the full report and suspended Priefer for 3 games Kluwe would go away.

Honestly, that would only encourage him. He's an ex-player doing this slow evolution into Social Justice Warrior and media whore.

[Raptorman]

Maybe, but why cave to his demands if they believe they're inaccurate or unreasonable?

A million dollars is a lot of money. I realize NFL teams routinely deal in such large amounts when it comes to player and head coaching contracts but that doesn't mean they're willing to just spend it to satisfy the whims of an angry ex-player.

Tell me, how much money do you think they will be paying the lawyers to fight the lawsuit over the next 6-9 months? I would be willing to bet it will be over $1 million. Not to mention the distraction to the team.

And don't get me wrong, I don't think the demands are right, I think if the Vikings want this to go away that would do it. I also don't believe Kluwe believes he can win a court case. At this point I think its all about getting the full report released.

[Raptorman]

Honestly, that would only encourage him. He's an ex-player doing this slow evolution into Social Justice Warrior and media whore.

I would say being a Social Justice Warrior puts him in some pretty good company.

[Just Me]

Tell me, how much money do you think they will be paying the lawyers to fight the lawsuit over the next 6-9 months? I would be willing to bet it will be over $1 million. Not to mention the distraction to the team.

And don't get me wrong, I don't think the demands are right, I think if the Vikings want this to go away that would do it. I also don't believe Kluwe believes he can win a court case. At this point I think its all about getting the full report released.

I don't disagree with you. Corporations settle these things all the time (exactly for monetary reasons - not because of their assessment of their chances for ultimate victory) but you are omitting one other factor. If a corporation "caves" to these demands there is possibility of other, frivolous (ALERT - I'M NOT SAYING OR SUGGESTING Kluwe's lawsuit is 'frivolous' - I'm talking about other lawsuits that would subsequently BE frivolous) lawsuits being filed just to get the "settlement". That's hard to predict, but it does factor in to the "total" cost of fighting/settling the case.

[Mothman]

I don't disagree with you. Corporations settle these things all the time (exactly for monetary reasons - not because of their assessment of their chances for ultimate victory) but you are omitting one other factor. If a corporation "caves" to these demands there is possibility of other, frivolous (ALERT - I'M NOT SAYING OR SUGGESTING Kluwe's lawsuit is 'frivolous' - I'm talking about other lawsuits that would subsequently BE frivolous) lawsuits being filed just to get the "settlement". That's hard to predict, but it does factor in to the "total" cost of fighting/settling the case.

Exactly. Plus, if they were to simply capitulate and meet Kluwe's demands could that be used against them and viewed as a tacit admission of guilt if he then chose to pursue a lawsuit anyway?

On top of that, as I indicated above, money is only part of the equation. There's also the question of whether the Vikings believe the accusations are inaccurate and the demands unreasonable. Their goal may not be to simply make all of this go away but rather to do what they think is right.

[tnvikesfan]

I have seen where a company has caved to demands just to settle it. It backfires. The company then becomes a target for those who are looking for an easy payout (not necessarily monetary), and it promotes bad behavior. IMO, a company is better off to spend the $$ on the legal team and win a suit, setting them up as a difficult target than to cave in, make a payout and be perceived as weak.

Anyone ever heard the term 'penny wise and pound foolish'?

[tnvikesfan]

I put this on the other thread, but feel it may be of interest over here too. Or not. Just my perspective.

Disclaimer: I haven't read everything about this, just enough to see there are multiple issues.

Coming at this from an HR standpoint (as an HR person at a VERY diverse company), we have a few things to consider.

1. Statements allegedly made by a supervisor that are highly inappropriate

2. A former employee who did not report the supervisor's behavior at the time of occurrence.

3. Misleading or inaccurate or outright false allegations from former employee.

4. A former employee who was terminated for poor job performance.

5. A former employee who belongs to a 'protected class'.

6. A supervisor who did not follow appropriate disciplinary procedures for an employee creating disruption in the work area.

We have 2 people at fault here.
1. The Company needs to discipline the supervisor for not following the Harassment & Discrimination policy. This would be for verbal violations, such as an impromptu comment due to frustration. A supervisor should be able to control his emotions and speech, understanding that as a position of authority he is required to follow a certain standard of behavior. Since no physical action (unless I missed something?) happened, it is all verbal and should be treated as such. Remember, everyone is still allowed to have opinions in this country, we just have to follow the rules of expression - especially in the workplace.

2. The former employee loses credibility for not reporting any and all incidents upon occurrence. It is the employee's job to do that, so that a problem can be addressed and corrected (I can't tell you how many times an employee will bring up alleged 'bad supervisor' issues while in for disciplinary action of a completely different nature to try to escape responsibility for their own actions). The employee also should have been properly disciplined for creating disruptions in the work area and was not. Just like an employee who takes excessive breaks or is late to their job area, creating disruptions and distractions during work time should not be tolerated. It doesn't matter WHAT the disruption is, it's still a disruption. He is there to work, not follow a personal or political agenda.

I understand why Kluwe has not been picked up by another team. Poor performance + personal agenda can have an exponentially negative impact on a team. Remember, they are paid to win games, not be politically correct quota makers. Professional sports seems to be one of the few venues left where performance is valued above anything else. It is also a very sharp double edged sword in that it allows inappropriate and illegal behaviors to be overlooked for performance value.

From what I've seen of all this hoopla, the supervisor in this case was disciplined appropriately for a first offence. The former employee is reaping what he has sown for all his actions, including his job performance.

[maembe]

This is probably the type of approach the Viking are taking and given the realities if the world today it makes sense, but in a less litigious, legalistic, and regulated society, An employee and employer are both offering something to the other as a means of exchange. If either party isn't happy with the arrangement they should be free to sever it from that point on. Thats how a free and dignified society would function.

What if the employer isn't happy about the employee's race or the employer just doesn't like Christians? Surely you agree there should be restrictions to what you're saying.

Even as a huge Kluwe supporter, I don't believe that he was fired for his beliefs, at least, barring some more evidence that we haven't seen yet. I believe that he was fired for expressing his beliefs in a way that drew media attention. That's an absolutely idiotic reason for firing someone, especially someone who was doing something really positive for the community and making our organization look good for once, however, I don't think that's illegal or anything, just stupid.

[Laserman]

goodness Kluwe just needs to STFU and go away, Such a vengeful jerkoff

[mossbutt]

well, who needs freedom of speech anyway