"The allegations made today are reprehensible and totally not compatible with what Mike Priefer stands for."
By allegations, I think it is understood that he was referring to the Deadspin report, stating that Priefer made a series of homophobic comments towards Kluwe. Walsh stated that these allegations were "reprehensible". Kluwe and his lawyer contends that these statements were made in Walsh's presence.
Reprehensible -
deserving censure or condemnation.
"his complacency and reprehensible laxity"
synonyms (words with the same or similar meaning):deplorable, disgraceful, discreditable, despicable, blameworthy, culpable, wrong, bad, shameful, dishonorable, objectionable, opprobrious, repugnant, inexcusable, unforgivable, indefensible, unjustifiable;
I believe that you know what I am getting at. If what Kluwe is saying is true, and Blair was witness to it, his statement is a lie or at best a very serious omission of truth if you'd rather go that route, and he knows it. Like I said, not sure if that is the case yet, Kluwe could be the one lying. I think we should all reserve judgement until the facts are presented.
What's also troubling to me: If the Vikings did know about this at the point Kluwe's lawyer states that they did, they should not have turned a blind eye to it. I'm sorry, but coming out nearly a year later, when the situation has blown up, and claiming this is the first they have heard of it is stupid...again IF what Kluwe is saying is true.
Mothman wrote: Let's not pretend an NFL practice field or meeting room is a normal or typical workplace. Maybe Kluwe's ultimate goal here is to have it treated like one but to a certain degree, taunting or harassing players is one of the tools in a coach's playbook. Some use it, some don't and maybe none should but regardless of what Kluwe's lawyer says, there are inevitably two sides to every story. At this point, we still have Kluwe's side and little else.
Taunting and harassing a punter? Is that really necessary? Taunting your punter, kicker, and long snapper? I can't see it. It obviously wasn't considered funny, either, for those who weren't being regularly harassed. So, that tells me, it wasn't said as a joke. For Loeffler to speak up about it, when he was likely new to the "gay" comments, that says something. I think this also explains why he was so quiet for so long.
If that is his style, what's the reasoning behind him not always treating Kluwe that way? Maybe because it became personal after him becoming outspoken on the same-sex marriage issue? I don't think that's your standard "tough guy" stuff. That seems personal, therefore, inappropriate. But, that's just me.
frosted21 wrote:
"The allegations made today are reprehensible and totally not compatible with what Mike Priefer stands for."
By allegations, I think it is understood that he was referring to the Deadspin report, stating that Priefer made a series of homophobic comments towards Kluwe. Walsh stated that these allegations were "reprehensible". Kluwe and his lawyer contends that these statements were made in Walsh's presence.
Reprehensible -
deserving censure or condemnation.
"his complacency and reprehensible laxity"
synonyms (words with the same or similar meaning):deplorable, disgraceful, discreditable, despicable, blameworthy, culpable, wrong, bad, shameful, dishonorable, objectionable, opprobrious, repugnant, inexcusable, unforgivable, indefensible, unjustifiable;
I believe that you know what I am getting at. If what Kluwe is saying is true, and Blair was witness to it, his statement is a lie or at best a very serious omission of truth if you'd rather go that route, and he knows it. Like I said, not sure if that is the case yet, Kluwe could be the one lying. I think we should all reserve judgement until the facts are presented.
If you look earlier in the thread where I dissected this statement (And NextQuestion pointing out that Walsh did not outright deny the statement was made) I pointed out that Walsh's statement did not exclude the possibility that Priefer said exactly what Kluwe alleged. IOW parse it this way:
"The allegations made today are reprehensible" - They are reprehensible allegations. I don't think anyone thinks Priefer should have made a statement like that (assuming he did). It is the alleged action that is reprehensible. Walsh could be deliberately misleading, but it could still be a true statement even if Kluwe is 100% accurate in his allegations. Continuing -
"and totally not compatible with what Mike Priefer stands for." - That can be a statement to suggest that Priefer "stands for" equal treatment (in most cases) but he failed to live up to the standard that he "stands for". Walsh never once, denies Priefer made the statement that Kluwe alleges he did. So,no - Walsh is not "lying" but may be saying "just enough of the truth" to appear supportive of his coach (understandable - since that's his "boss") while not outright lying about anything.
You can read my earlier analysis of Walsh's statement here
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!
Funkytown wrote:Taunting and harassing a punter? Is that really necessary? Taunting your punter, kicker, and long snapper? I can't see it. It obviously wasn't considered funny, either, for those who weren't being regularly harassed.
In what way is that obvious? Again, we are still dealing with nothing but Kluwe's side of the story. Hearing aspects of it repeated by his lawyer doesn't serve as confirmation of any kind, nor do his lawyers claims about texts that haven't bee produced or meetings that supposedly took place and what was said in them. There's no reason yet to accept any of this at face value and assume it's an unbiased, truthful, accurate account of events.
So, that tells me, it wasn't said as a joke. For Loeffler to speak up about it, when he was likely new to the "gay" comments, that says something.
It will if and when he actually speaks up.
I'm sorry, until this story becomes something more than one-sided allegations, then ALL it is is one-sided allegations.
It's amusing how many people have taken such absolute sides in this.
Let me just throw this out there: Maybe Priefer, being maybe a little bit of a knucklehead when it comes to dealing with a certain type of person, thought he could get Chris Kluwe's attention or "light a fire" under him by trying to get a rise out of him. When you're desperate to get someone to listen to you, sometimes you take something that you know is very personal to that person and just stick it in their face in the only way you know how.
Because Priefer, in his mind, could rationalize what he could have said like that, in his opinion he'd think that he did nothing wrong. After all, he didn't MEAN what he said, he just thought he could get a veteran player's attention. At this point, Priefer hadn't exactly been the special teams coach for long, and Kluwe had seen a few come and go. And Kluwe is the type that is obviously too smart for his own good, and most likely felt he knew what he was doing and didn't need to take direction from some newbie. Maybe he felt the guy should spend more time trying to coach the rookie kicker. That kind of attitude might really be annoying to a guy like Priefer who has a strong military background and has mostly worked and played in very top down/structured organizations that don't accept that type of free-spirited attitude.
In Kluwe's mind, I'm sure he's considered this. But he also probably has a lot of doubt about that, too. And maybe, when sitting out that last season and thinking about his situation, maybe the things he heard during his time there and the way he felt he was treated made him question that feeling.
Ultimately, you can rationalize every side of this issue really easily. Spielman wanted to clear up some cap room down the road so he cut a higher priced veteran specialist in favor of a rookie. That's a valid point, even if it is fairly risky. Maybe he was also tired of his front office fielding calls from irate fans who felt like they could "get back" at Kluwe for his public political stands by calling various support numbers and unloading on them. Or angry letters from season ticket holders. Obviously, this sort of problem would effect Frazier's job security as well, and I'm sure after two previous bad seasons as a head coach, he knew where he stood and was really sensitive to any type of scrutiny. In his mind, his best chance of keeping his job was getting everyone "on board".
And of course, there's Priefer. A coach that probably felt like he was being disrespected by one of his players when that player didn't follow orders, didn't take instruction. We all can remember Priefer complaining about Kluwe publicly during that season. You bet he complained a lot to Frazier, too, about it, which probably got in Frazier's head that way as well.
Honestly, they all had valid reasons to want to remove Chris Kluwe. And Chris Kluwe had a valid reason to take a public stand about an issue he felt strongly about. NFL players run charities, take stands on issues they feel are important all the time. The Vikings themselves have a long history of head coaches who advocated politically one way or the other. In his mind, he's a veteran and he's put in his time, so like a lot of veterans, he spoke his mind. In his case, it's an issue that isn't even that bad for the team...there have been plenty of veterans that have spoken their minds very loudly and negatively about the coaches, the facilities, the plays, you name it. Some of them kept their jobs, too. Ranting about the team is obviously divisive and sometimes (depending on how it's done and what's said) cancerous. Kluwe's messages weren't even about the team, and only the Ray Guy thing and his comic strip he made during the lockout were league related. In his mind, he probably felt that he wasn't posing any trouble. And if he really did get a vote of support from Zygi at one point, that can do really nothing but make him feel like it's not a problem. Kluwe played under three head coaches, in his mind coaches come and go (and he probably figured, after a bad year or two, that Frazier wasn't long to be cut loose), that it wouldn't really matter in the long run.
So basically, IF Priefer only used derogatory terms to attempt to get a rise out of Chris Kluwe, Priefer's an idiot, but a lot of coaches do that. I've gotten that treatment, and all it ever did for me was make me ignore that coach. Those guys don't work well with smart people and that's why. But it is a part of the game. I'm sure Kluwe knows that, but I'm sure he's also sitting there wondering "what if Mike really meant that stuff?" and "what if he just kept bugging Frazier until I got cut?". He can have all the evidence in the world, and even name some names - but there's no way to prove if those players will be brave enough to give a straight answer. Considering that Matt Birk and Cullen Loeffler were two of Kluwe's closest friends on the team, too, at one time...maybe the players he named (to investigators, I might add...not publicly...some people see that as Kluwe rolling over on his old teammates which so far hasn't been true) didn't even care that Priefer said any of that stuff. Not to say that those guys would support that, but they'd probably fall more on the "Mike's just trying to get a rise out of Kluwe" side of it and let it go. They might really not even remember any of it.
I'm guessing, at this point, Chris Kluwe doesn't really even care anymore about how you feel if you hate him or think he's crazy for saying all this stuff. Getting it out makes you feel a whole lot better than letting it stew for years inside you. He's got his fans, he's got a nice pile of cash from being a punter in the NFL a lot longer than most punters in the NFL, and he's got a zillion other things he's doing. And if he wants, he can play computer games all day long and that money is still there because he's probably got it invested carefully with one of the boutique wealthy family planning agencies. It's not like he lives in Minnesota and shops at the Cub Foods where you shop, you know? It's not like what you say will hurt his feelings. A punter who's been out of the game for over a year isn't likely to get back in. So it's not like it hurts him all that much...and considering his various stances on issues, it wasn't likely that he was going to get hired to do ESPN commentary anytime soon (like they hire punters to do that anyway). Maybe he doesn't really want to be a college coach. But if you have all that and you have that one big thing making you unhappy, and maybe that thing needs to get out, it's your choice to let it out and "cross the Rubicon" as he put it.
In the end, I doubt anything sticks to anyone. A lot of fans have taken their sides, though, and no amount of arguing back and forth is going to change the way they feel about the team as a result. It's a black mark for sure for a lot of Viking fans and time is the only cure for that unless the team fires some people. For the rest, they can shrug it off and go back to being fully "rah rah". I just don't see any solid proof that anything went wrong unless we start hearing some recorded conversations. That's the only thing that really mattered in the Jonathan Martin case. I don't think anyone comes out of it completely vindicated, though, there were way too many weird coincidences that make a person wonder. No amount of arguing and discussion board ranting and insults will ever make that go away for a lot of people.
Rus, a great post. But you are making far too much sense I'm afraid. I think there's quite a few who want to do to Priefer what he supposedly seriously said should be done to every single gay person in the world.
It's again disappointing to me that Kluwe's camp felt the need today to very publicly try to influence public opinion in the investigation by talking to the press. The most interesting thing to me that the lawyer for Kluwe stated was that they are concerned the investigation will conclude that Priefer was joking. In my mind, Kluwe opened himself up to this line of questioning when he stated in the Deadspin piece, "He [Priefer] said all this in a semi-joking tone, and I [Kluwe] responded in kind." Now that Kluwe has given his side to investigators, hopefully they can bring it to a fast resolution. It was also interesting the Wilf's very quickly issued a statement today stating the first Ownership heard of the matter was the Jan. 2 Deadspin article when the lawyer for Kluwe stated today that Kluwe in Loeffler's presence brought the matter to a Vikings official prior to Kluwe's release from the team. I wonder if there is a written record of that discussion on file, one of the articles said the Vikings official in question had lawyered up.
CalVike wrote:It's again disappointing to me that Kluwe's camp felt the need today to very publicly try to influence public opinion in the investigation by talking to the press. The most interesting thing to me that the lawyer for Kluwe stated was that they are concerned the investigation will conclude that Priefer was joking. In my mind, Kluwe opened himself up to this line of questioning when he stated in the Deadspin piece, "He [Priefer] said all this in a semi-joking tone, and I [Kluwe] responded in kind." Now that Kluwe has given his side to investigators, hopefully they can bring it to a fast resolution. It was also interesting the Wilf's very quickly issued a statement today stating the first Ownership heard of the matter was the Jan. 2 Deadspin article when the lawyer for Kluwe stated today that Kluwe in Loeffler's presence brought the matter to a Vikings official prior to Kluwe's release from the team. I wonder if there is a written record of that discussion on file, one of the articles said the Vikings official in question had lawyered up.
Les Pico could be in some serious poopoo if he did not inform anyone, especially ownership, if this complaint was filed back in May....or does he not have to report that kind of stuff? I mean, is there not HR w/ Vikes?
NextQuestion wrote:
Les Pico could be in some serious poopoo if he did not inform anyone, especially ownership, if this complaint was filed back in May....or does he not have to report that kind of stuff? I mean, is there not HR w/ Vikes?
He could have investigated. He could have asked Walsh and Loeffler if they had any problems with homophobic statements from priefer and if they both said no it becomes a situation where it's he said she said.
I wish we would just move on from Priefer. Kluwe, the idiot that he is, is going to continue to make this an issue and it's nothing but a distraction to this team. It doesn't take a genius to run special teams that have Patterson, Sherels and Walsh within it.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Even before anything came out about this the Vikings looked bad. Then, when all of this came out they looked really bad. Now, if indeed someone in the Vikings leadership knew about this, and it sounds like they did, we come out looking really, really, really bad. All this trouble and we couldn't even come out of it with a decent punter. It sure is tough to be a Vikings fan sometimes.
Pondering Her Percy wrote:I wish we would just move on from Priefer. Kluwe, the idiot that he is, is going to continue to make this an issue and it's nothing but a distraction to this team. It doesn't take a genius to run special teams that have Patterson, Sherels and Walsh within it.
What makes Kluwe an idiot?
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa
Demi wrote:Defends meat head Peterson in one thread, calls Kluwe an idiot in another.
Ooook then.
You literally have ZERO backing that Peterson is a "meat head" and where you are even coming up with that is beyond me. You're literally one of the only people I've ever seen say that. Gimme a break
And yes Kluwe is an idiot. He's a guy that could never keep his mouth shut and strived for attention. He got cut from one team and then couldn't make it on another team so obviously his play wasn't good enough anymore. I will never believe that the reason the Vikings let him go was because of his support of gay rights. He wasn't a good punter....bottom line. Enough is enough.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Taunting your punter, kicker, and long snapper? I can't see it. It obviously wasn't considered funny, either, for those who weren't being regularly harassed. So, that tells me, it wasn't said as a joke. For Loeffler to speak up about it, when he was likely new to the "gay" comments, that says something. I think this also explains why he was so quiet for so long. 
