Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[dead_poet]

Meanwhile, Vikings beat writer Chip Scoggins asked Kluwe a few questions today:

Q: Why write this?

Kluwe: For me, this is the point coaches and GMs are looking for career opportunities. I kept my silence for the entire year. I wasn’t going to bring that on the team during the year. Now that it’s pretty obvious that I’m not going to get another shot in the NFL, I feel like it’s a story that needs to be told.

Q: You obviously put your name on it, but just checking, you stand by everything you wrote?

Kluwe: Yep. It was all accurate. I have witnesses. I prefer not to call any witnesses unless it’s legally needed because those are my friends and teammates and I’d like to keep them out of it.

Q: Are you worried about fallout from this?

Kluwe: No, not really. It’s one of those things where this is what happened. I realize there will be people that say, ‘This is just sour grapes. He’s upset that he got cut.’”

Kluwe mentions that he’s going to write a memoirs from his career some day ….

Kluwe: I’m going to write my football memoirs at some point and this will be part of it. A lot of it will be just looking at, this is the NFL, a billion dollar industry. There’s things that happen in this bubble of unreality that you would never believe happen. It just doesn’t make sense. But they happen.

Q: The part about Zygi approaching you to offer support was interesting.

Kluwe: That’s my thing. I’m wondering if possibly Frazier thought that maybe I had gone over his head to go talk to the owner. But that was completely out of the blue. I was just warming up before the game and Zygi came up and talked to me and said that. I was like, ‘Wow, that’s awesome.’”

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/238469381.html

[The Breeze]

To me, it's pretty obvious Kluwe has an agenda and he's handling the situation in the way he thinks will accomplish that agenda. He is an activist and someone who believes in social change and is not afraid of making "bold" decisions to stand up for what he believes is the right thing. He is also a very intelligent person who understands the ramifications of his actions. If he were to go the Wilfs with the issue, it likely would have been dealt with outside of the public's eye. The Wilf's would not want the negative publicity this type of story will bring, and thus they would quietly fire Priefer with their reasons for it staying hush, hush. Same thing would likely happen if he goes to the league with this information. And seeking legal action puts Kluwe's true intentions at question, as many will instantly wonder whether Kluwe really cares or if he's just in it for a free bonus after his career is over. What he wants is the media and the public to be aware of this, because it brings attention to his cause and what he believes in. Which is another reason I would have a hard time believing this is story if fabricated, because he has nothing to gain by creating a story and it will bring negative light to the cause he's fighting for if exposed as lies.

So yes, I guess you could say that is what I'm saying, or at least what Kluwe believes. Some might say it's not the professional or proper way to go about it, as most would believe in a professional level of discretion in dealing with matter's such as these. But that is not who Chris Kluwe is.

This is precisely how I see it.

[Mothman]

I get your take, Jim. I don't disagree either.
I just think it looks as though Kluwe is making sure of a few things with the tools he has ...and that I get it.
I don't think he's lying about this a year later.

I doubt he's lying. That would seem very out of character for Kluwe, at least based on what we know about him.

I'm glad you understand my take on this. I understand yours too and I appreciate you "talking it out" here in this thread.

[Just Me]

I realize that Kluwe has referred to other witnesses.....but my question was regarding a scenario where you knew someone had committed a crime because you were there but could not prove it....would you even say anything?

What if no one comes forward even though it happened exactly the way Kluwe says it did?

What if you had a resource like Kluwe does? Would you just say nothing?

If no one comes forward nothing will be proven one way or the other...nonetheless if it's all true justice will have been served to some extent.

I'm suggesting a reason for why Kluwe is exposing it all this way.

There are many (legitimate) reasons why he could choose this way to bring this issue to light. Even if it is a he said/she said (or I guess in this case he said/he said) situation, you still have someone interviewing both parties. I don't accept the premise (blindly) that something cannot be proven. I know those situations exist, but in reality, there is usually some other evidence that can be uncovered doing a proper background that would tend to support or tend to refute the allegations. I still think the best way for him to have handled it would have been to go directly to the Wilfs with the issue. They already (at least they say) are going to investigate on this (allegedly) first day they heard about it.

If, on the other hand, he tried to go to the Wilfs first, and nothing was done, then what other choice would he have but get the press and the public involved. It's not that what he did was wrong, per se, it's just that he went to (what I believe should have been) step 2 before trying step 1.

[tmscr]

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/238469381.html

Isn't true activism advocating a cause even when it isn't convenient? It sounds like he was waiting when it was right for HIM to bring up this story. And he didn't want to "bring that on the team during the year"? Wasn't this the guy who said something along the lines of "I don't need football, I can go do something else"? Sounds like a guy who was really committed to the team concept.

[DarthBrooks]

The article comes off as so slanted as to be vertical.

[The Breeze]

I doubt he's lying. That would seem very out of character for Kluwe, at least based on what we know about him.

I'm glad you understand my take on this. I understand yours too and I appreciate you "talking it out" here in this thread.

You are a very practical and patient being as far as communication goes. I learn a lot from you in that sense.
Kluwe is obviously a bit more mecurial in his robes of activism.

I tend to oscillate back and forth regularly depending on the subject....or the weather...

[dead_poet]

I could be very wrong about this, and I've been an outspoken critic of Kluwe's antics, but Chris Kluwe seems to be more interested in promoting himself than he is about promoting gay rights. I believe, as I always have, that Chris Kluwe is all about self-promotion in everything he does.

I understand that perspective, but here's my question: what could a guy in Kluwe's position do to further a cause he believes in but NOT at the expense of perceived self-promotion? Is perhaps self-promotion a natural consequence of being in the media? I guess I don't understand how he could further a cause to the level he has and NOT.

And the idea that his performance wasn't diminishing ... the Oakland Raiders cut him after the Vikings did. Are we to believe there was some kind of conspiracy in place here? Please.

It wouldn't be the first time a team didn't want a player due to their off-field baggage.

Assuming everything he says about Priefer is true (I'd sure love some corroboration, but I'll give it to him), it makes Priefer a POS, no doubt. But it still doesn't mean that Kluwe deserves a job in the NFL.

No, it doesn't. I don't think he expects to be handed one. But I think he believes he deserves a chance to compete for one. Statistically he's been about average (if not a bit better), which means there are no fewer than 15 teams that could use an upgrade if only from a purely football point of view. However I maintain that he's not SO GOOD of a punter that a team would be willing to take on the non-football-related media attention for a few more net punting yards.

This screams of a guy trying desperately to remain relevant.

Meh. The reasons he gives for getting this out are logical.

[Just Me]

This is precisely how I see it.

Fair enough. I see where you guys are coming from.

[saint33]

@Dead_Poet Kluwe is a bigot because he think his view on gay rights is great but anyone who is against it is a bad person. It's clear that some people on the team probably don't care for gay activism. Homosexuality will always be a controversial topic which is why many companies and organisations don't even address it.

This is seriously such backwards thinking it's ridiculous. We're talking about equality rights here, treating all human beings the same and not taking rights away from them because of their sexuality.

Am I a bigot for hating a slave owner who is against the freeing of black people? I know that is an extreme example, but it is the same premise. Gay people should have just as many rights as human beings as straight people or transgendered people.

Not to mention the only person Kluwe has called a bigot was the man who openly said "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." I think he's doing a little more than "disagreeing" with gay rights.

[dead_poet]

Isn't true activism advocating a cause even when it isn't convenient?

Don't you think people would've been much more critical of him had he published this during the season?

It sounds like he was waiting when it was right for HIM to bring up this story.

Why is this the right time for him? If anything, you think he would've made more headlines had he done this immediately after he was released or any time during the season.

And he didn't want to "bring that on the team during the year"? Wasn't this the guy who said something along the lines of "I don't need football, I can go do something else"? Sounds like a guy who was really committed to the team concept.

I don't see how those two are related. Most of these guys don't need football (and, really, how many people really and truly "need" football?), but that doesn't mean they aren't team players.

[The Breeze]

There are many (legitimate) reasons why he could choose this way to bring this issue to light. Even if it is a he said/she said (or I guess in this case he said/he said) situation, you still have someone interviewing both parties. I don't accept the premise (blindly) that something cannot be proven. I know those situations exist, but in reality, there is usually some other evidence that can be uncovered doing a proper background that would tend to support or tend to refute the allegations. I still think the best way for him to have handled it would have been to go directly to the Wilfs with the issue. They already (at least they say) are going to investigate on this (allegedly) first day they heard about it.

If, on the other hand, he tried to go to the Wilfs first, and nothing was done, then what other choice would he have but get the press and the public involved. It's not that what he did was wrong, per se, it's just that he went to (what I believe should have been) step 2 before trying step 1.

In reality we're talking about something that was said not anything physical. I don't really believe bigotry or intolerance is a crime...it's ignorance. And in the case of adults, it's willful ignorance.

I agree with your sentiments....my real point is to suggest that Kluwe is leaving nothing to chance here. He's sees a very clear cut way to impinge upon this individuals ability to influence others and he took it at a time when the man might be moving further up the ladder.

I revel in the idea that we may see a time when bigots can feel the sort of public humiliation they have caused their own victims in the past.

Like I said I don' t think it's a crime as much as it is a sad reality, and public shame is a most potent way to disaude certain behaviors.

[dead_poet]

Mike Priefer issues statement to "vehemently deny allegations" made by Chris Kluwe. Says he has gay family members he loves and supports. Priefer: "I want to be clear that I do not tolerate discrimination of any type and am respectful of all individuals. Priefer: The comments today have not only attacked my character and insulted my professionalism, but they have also impacted my family."

Priefer: "The primary reason I entered coaching was to affect people in a positive way."

Priefer -- whom I have confirmed remains employed by the #Vikings -- says he will continue to work hard for the team, the Wilfs and fans.

[Mothman]

You are a very practical and patient being as far as communication goes. I learn a lot from you in that sense.

Thank you.

Kluwe is obviously a bit more mecurial in his robes of activism.

I can relate. I was once the same way.

I tend to oscillate back and forth regularly depending on the subject....or the weather...

I see you as pretty steady so perhaps you don't 'oscillate" as much as you think. On the other hand, you are a fan...

Sorry, I was groaning at that joke as I wrote it.

[Raptorman]

I doubt he's lying. That would seem very out of character for Kluwe, at least based on what we know about him.

I'm glad you understand my take on this. I understand yours too and I appreciate you "talking it out" here in this thread.

I don't think he is lying either. Even he admits his stance may not be what got him fired. Although I tend to think it helped him out the door. His main beef seems to be with Priefer, not Speilman or Frazier.

He was probably one of the smartest people in football when he was playing. I am sure that he thought about all the ramifications of his story before putting it out there. One of the things that is never talked about is a gay player in the NFL. There has to have been several of them if not more by now. And no, Aaron Rodgers is not gay. It would be interesting to find out that one of the Vikings players who was in the room when the statements were said, if true, turned out to be gay.