Kluwe rips Frazier, Spielman, Priefer

[Mothman]

I'm inclined to lend it more credit to Kluwe's recollection for the reasons you mentioned, but let's not forget he was also cut by the Raiders. I think his career in the NFL was pretty much done before he wrote this article, so I'm not excluding the possibility this is a "shot" at the man whom he believes cost him his job. In the end, none of us really have a Kluwe what went on, but hopefully the Wilfs will look into it, and if true, get rid of Priefer.

I see what you did there. Well played...

[Juice]

Aw, there we have Kluwe in all his true, self-centered glory. The Vikings couldn't get rid of that assh0le fast enough for me.

Agreed.

[Just Me]

I've learned that too. I've also learned to know when a person is scarificing themself for a cause that is bigger than them, which is what I see going on here.

I'll wager that "the other side" of the story will amount to sweeping it under the rug ala 'sour grape' references and the like.

Sounds like you've already decided. I'm waiting to see if anyone else comes forward to support the story. My initial inclination is to believe it is substantially correct. But I've been in those situations before (even when the person has apparently 'noble' intentions) and when additional facts were known, my opinion has been 'adjusted.' We probably don't have the ability to come to an accurate conclusion, but the Wilf's do (and I would argue they have an obligation to look into this).

[VikingLord]

Thanks for the link. Perhaps Chris Kluwe should take his own advice and look in the mirror. Referring to Frazier and Spielman as cowards based on the story he presented comes across as the view of a bitter man, and not one without significant bias. Maybe his bitterness is wholly justified and maybe not. It would be interesting to get some perspectives on Kluwe's story from Priefer, Frazier, Spielman and especially from some of Kluwe's teammates. I'm certainly not willing to just accept Kluwe's side of the story at face value.

If what he wrote IS accurate, it certainly makes Priefer sound awful.

I don't agree Kluwe should look in the mirror. What he should do is sue for workplace harassment, get Spielman, Frazier, and Priefer deposed under oath, and make sure others who were in the room when Priefer made the remark about rounding up the gays on an island and nuking it till it glows are deposed under oath as well. That will settle the veracity of the claims, especially if any recordings of the meetings exist. A similar strategy worked to expose the Saints bountygate scandal, with severe results for those involved, and honestly it's the only way to establish the facts as I agree with you Jim that this is just one side of a story.

I think in writing what he did Kluwe may now have no choice but to sue, as any of the people specifically mentioned in the article could easily sue him for defamation if his claims are not true.

On a more general note, I personally don't believe Kluwe made any of this up as doing so doesn't benefit him in any way at this point. He gains nothing but possible trouble by making the claims he did. He even says himself that he doubts it will ever be possible for him to work in the NFL again after writing the article, not for the Vikings and not for any other team. So he makes the claims public at high possible personal cost and very little personal benefit. What is sitting in his soul must bother him a great deal to do that, and if it's untrue he just nuked himself for nothing, basically. He doesn't strike me as the suicide bomber type.

[saint33]

I've been an avid supporter of Priefer on this board. I think what he's done as a special teams coach has been very good, and I think he is great in this aspect of his job.

However, after reading this, I am extremely disgusted with the man, and hope he gets fired. I don't care how productive he is as a coach, the things he said are shocking and as a man who's supposed to be a leader and a teacher, it is simply unacceptable. Kluwe is completely accurate in calling him a bigot.

[NextQuestion]

Sort of funny to see VMB posters responses. Feels like it shows where you stand with Kluwe's initial fighting cause. It's 2014 folks...

[The Breeze]

I'm not suggesting he made any of it up but he's giving us his perceptions of what happened, based solely on his memories of events. He's providing comments from people as direct quotes, as if he recorded and transcribed them, but he clearly didn't so we don't know if he has them right. Human memory and perception are flawed, especially once emotions get involved, and some of the situations he described were clearly emotionally charged. It's not his integrity I question, it's his ability to provide a completely accurate picture of events and motivations that we can trust without question.
One
He is that... I think he also comes across as bitter and very emotional and consequently, I don't trust his account of events to be unbiased.

I don't think any of it has to be proven other than in the court of public opinion....to me that's where the tide of intolerance gets turned around.
Kluwe has every right to be bitter and emotional....just as Priefer has every right to believe what he does. Now perspective employers have reason to believe Priefer is a bigoted dinosaur. If he doesn't sue Kluwe over this...haha, Kluwe gets the last laugh. Kluwe is clearly biased and going to battle here.

It will be very interesting to see Priefers response to this and where it all goes.....it appears his NFL career is jeopardized by this accusation....or it should be. But the NFL does appear to be a good ole boys club of selective permeability alot of times.

Maybe nothing happens.

I have never been an ardent supporter of Kluwe's crusade, I never read his articles until today, but I do applaud when people take a stand against systemic issues like intolerance...because I think many of the greater social issues we face stem from that source.

[NextQuestion]

Tree
|
|
|
Apple

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014 ... witter.php

[The Breeze]

Sounds like you've already decided. I'm waiting to see if anyone else comes forward to support the story. My initial inclination is to believe it is substantially correct. But I've been in those situations before (even when the person has apparently 'noble' intentions) and when additional facts were known, my opinion has been 'adjusted.' We probably don't have the ability to come to an accurate conclusion, but the Wilf's do (and I would argue they have an obligation to look into this).

I have decided and I'll be feeling sorry if it's all BS.
I think they do have an obligation to look into it....and Priefer is obligated to respond.

And I agree about our ability to reach any accurate conclusion about it.

The only motive for making any of this up would be to intentionally wreck a guys career out of some sort of revenge, which would be just as despicable....but not unheard of. Happens everyday, probably.

The Vikings....never a dull moment.

[The Breeze]

Tree
|
|
|
Apple

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014 ... witter.php

classic

[Mothman]

I don't think any of it has to be proven other than in the court of public opinion....to me that's where the tide of intolerance gets turned around.

Suppose someone accused you or someone you love of something similar tomorrow. Would you feel the same way then?

The "court of public opinion" is no court at all. Accusations aren't evidence and nobody should just be assumed guilty of something based on nothing more than one person's account. In the court of public opinion, a person can be accused of a sex crime (or something equally heinous) they never committed and then have their lives torn apart, even if they did absolutely nothing to deserve such a fate.

I have never been an ardent supporter of Kluwe's crusade, I never read his articles until today, but I do applaud when people take a stand against systemic issues like intolerance...because I think many of the greater social issues we face stem from that source.

I applaud that too but that's not what I see Kluwe doing here. I see an ex-employee making some pretty strong, nasty accusations about his former employers. As I said earlier, it's hard to imagine a more biased source of information. We have the story as Kluwe perceived it but that doesn't mean we have a complete or accurate story.

[Skoltastic_Voyage]

Either way if this wasn't a league blackball he would be playing somewhere if he was worth it. However he did label himself as a nuisance. I wouldn't blame a team from distancing themselves from any loud mouth regardless of what he was spouting...

[Texas Vike]

Tree
|
|
|
Apple

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014 ... witter.php

Wow.

Priefer allegedly made the "island" comments in front of numerous players, so it is not simply one man's word against that of another. Of course, those who were present may choose to remain silent.

[radar55]

I find it interesting (at least according to the article) that the Vikings would be dumb enough to try and silence Kluwe. Its obvious that this is a highly political issue with strong beliefs on each side but no matter what your personal feelings are, Kluwe was not attempting to in any way express a TEAM view. He was simply expressing HIS view thru his 1st amendment rights.

The fact that Priefer and Frazier continued to ask him to keep quiet until they found out that the Wilfs supported him speaks loudly as to the type of people they are. Apparently, Priefer and Frazier believed that being a player in the NFL somehow suggests that the given rights of the constitution no longer apply when you are a member of an NFL team. Then the managements position to get rid of Kluwe seems to continue that belief. IMO firing Kluwe was a retaliatory move by Priefer and Frazier based primarily if not entirely on his refusal to remain quiet and that is a slippery slope they are traveling. Obviously, Frazier is no longer around and hopefully, Priefer will be following him out the door soon.

[thatguy]

Suppose someone accused you or someone you love of something similar tomorrow. Would you feel the same way then?

The "court of public opinion" is no court at all. Accusations aren't evidence and nobody should just be assumed guilty of something based on nothing more than one person's account. In the court of public opinion, a person can be accused of a sex crime (or something equally heinous) they never committed and then have their lives torn apart, even if they did absolutely nothing to deserve such a fate.
I applaud that too but that's not what I see Kluwe doing here. I see an ex-employee making some pretty strong, nasty accusations about his former employers. As I said earlier, it's hard to imagine a more biased source of information. We have the story as Kluwe perceived it but that doesn't mean we have a complete or accurate story.

Too late now. Sad truth is, once you get labeled as a bigot, you'll never fully be able to wipe that off of your name. That's the unfortunate part about this, and regardless of what you think of the situation and the people involved, you can't deny that Kluwe handled the entire thing very, very poorly.