On Frank Clark, The Seahawks Failed Everyone Comment Count

Ace

When the Seattle Seahawks drafted Frank Clark in the second round of last weekend's NFL Draft, the obvious question arose: how would organization handle Clark's November arrest for a domestic violence charge?

The details of the arrest report were disturbing; Brady Hoke called the incident "unacceptable" while dismissing Clark from the program; at the NFL Combine, Clark engaged in an unsettling bit of victim-blaming instead of shouldering the full responsibility for his actions.* Clark pled guity to reduced charges in April. For an NFL team looking to draft Clark, due diligence was required; this wasn't even Clark's first run-in with the law.

On Friday, Seahawks GM John Schneider said all the right things about the organization's investigation into the incident:

“Our organization has an in-depth understanding of Frank Clark’s situation and background,” Schneider told reporters in Renton after the second and third rounds on Friday. “We have done a ton of research on this young man. There hasn’t been one player in this draft that we have spent more time researching and scrutinizing more than Frank. That’s why we have provided Frank with this opportunity and are looking forward to him succeeding in our culture here in Seattle.”

Schneider said, based on the team's investigation, he didn't believe Clark hit his girlfriend, and domestic violence issues were a deal-breaker when evaluating players. That revelation came as quite the surprise to many, including witnessess of the November incident—witnesses who, according to a bombshell report in the Seattle Times today, were never consulted by the Seahawks:

But the Seahawks made him the 63rd overall pick in the draft, saying team officials had conducted an extensive investigation of their own and felt confident that the 6-foot-2, 277-pound Clark had not struck his girlfriend. The team acknowledged on Monday that their investigation did not include interviews with witnesses other than Clark.

The police report describing the incident quotes Diamond Hurt, then 20, saying Clark punched her in the face. Hurt’s younger brothers are quoted saying the same thing.

When Babson and Colie found her, Hurt “was just laying there,’’ Babson said. “She looked like she was unconscious to me.

“The kids were saying, ‘He killed my sister!’ ’’

Colie added that Hurt “was on the ground, curled up and holding her head and stuff.’’

Both women gave written statements to police via email the following day. But they say they never heard back from anybody about the case until The Seattle Times contacted them on Monday.

The Seahawks didn't perform a thorough investigation. They didn't even perform a half-assed one. They talked to the person they wanted to play football for them, heard what they wanted to hear, and willfully ignored a great deal of evidence that directly contradicted their conclusions.

It's a remarkable failure that hurts all parties involved.

It's an unfortunate reality-check for the ever-increasing number of people hoping the NFL will actually take domestic violence seriously, instead of doing the bare minimum to avoid negative PR. I can't imagine how the victim must feel seeing Clark's new employer take her alleged assailant at his word and make no effort to get the full story, one corroborated by multiple witnesses.

It also does no favors for Clark. While his alleged transgressions—and his subsequent statements—leave little room for sympathy, he's had his day in court and isn't subject to further discipline from the NFL; he should be able to move forward with his career, ideally with the support of an organization that is there to help him learn from his past and become a better person.

Seattle's investigation and its backlash, which is only just beginning, cast that into serious doubt. If the Seahawks feel obligated to correct their mistakes with this investigation, Clark will be the one looking for a job, and while he has nobody to blame but himself for being in that position, that doesn't mean it's justified. Cutting Clark may save some face for the organization, but that's about it, and it certainly doesn't help Clark find his way to a better path. If Clark remains, on the other hand, Seattle's initial handling of this doesn't instill confidence they'll do a whole lot to support Clark's growth as anything but a football player.

The Seahawks hurt themselves, too—at the very least they're facing a major controversy, and at worst they'll cut a second-round pick before he ever suits up for them—but they've somehow set themselves up as the least sympathetic party in this most recent ordeal.

What's perhaps the most galling is how unnecessary this is. Clark's alleged assault was common knowledge heading into the draft, and most expected he'd still get drafted; I don't think the central issue here is with him getting a chance to play in the NFL, or even that he got selected earlier than expected for a player with his off-field history. What concerns me most is this: Seattle didn't take the issue seriously, no matter what they say, and in doing so they set everyone up for failure.

-----------------
*Clark would later make a more contrite statement of apology (last paragraph). He still maintains he didn't strike the victim.

Comments

bsand2053

May 5th, 2015 at 12:56 PM ^

I agree that the Seahawks screwed up, but is it appropriate for employers to contact the victims of their potential employees?  I would feel like I was violating their privacy or making them relive the attack.  

I'm not saying that it's not appropriate, just that I would have misgivings.  I'm hoping that someone else can weigh in.  

Streetchemist

May 5th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^

Just spitballing here, but is it possible that the Seahawks reviewed the police report and witness statements from these 2 individuals and didn't feel the need to follow up?

ypsituckyboy

May 5th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^

Without taking a side on the whole fiasco, I have one question - why should one be prohibited from working in the NFL after committing an act of domestic violence but not be prohibited from working, say, at a car wash after doing the same? Many of the people who are blustering about kicking out Greg Hardy, AP, Frank Clark, etc, would never dare say that felons shouldn't be given the right to work. Why is the NFL any different? Because they make a lot money and you don't want to see a bad person make a lot of money?

The only answer I can think of (and I think it's a lame one) is the "NFL players are a role model for kids". If you're kicking guys out of professional leagues based on that criteria, you'd see a mass exodus.

Vote_Crisler_1937

May 5th, 2015 at 1:09 PM ^

I do think felons need jobs and I don't think athletes are role models but I can guarantee you Frank would never be hired for anything by my firm. Even if he was as qualified for my industry as he is for football they would absolutely not hire him. I guess it's not a stretch for me to look at the Seahawks and wonder why they can't uphold the same stance.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

gwkrlghl

May 5th, 2015 at 3:38 PM ^

At some point then you're declaring that felons deserve a second chance but there should be some arbitrary salary ceiling on what they're able to do. Car wash, ok. Football, not? The Seahawks seemed to have handled this poorly, but Clark should deserve a 2nd chance. The worst thing you can do for a felon is declare them sub-par citizen for life

CorkyCole

May 5th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

I hear what you're saying, man.

I really think this would have came up regardless of who drafted him and what round he was drafted. I don't think drafting Frank Clark and giving him a chance to play was the problem, but perhaps the interview just seemed off and drew bad press because of what came out of it. Nothing needed to be said in this situation besides "we did our research." Leave it at that.

On a side note, didn't I read not too long ago that Frank Clark was speaking in schools about domestic violence?

theyellowdart

May 5th, 2015 at 1:55 PM ^

 

While I 1000% support the NFL taking a very hard stance on domestic abusers and similar.  The main reason why the NFL is so different has everything to do with where the NFL is getting their money.    Advertisers and a growing amount of the fan base want to see the NFL take strong action against domestic abusers because of the massive amount of attention the NFL gets.    I mean... money talks.

It's not necessarily about the players being role models, but the NFL being able to take action and tell a huge chunk of society, including millions and millions of kids and teens "This is not acceptable.  If you want to have the privilage of playing pro football, you can't do this stuff."  

As the old saying goes "With great power comes great responsbility"  The NFL, and their players, have a great amount of power in society.  Far far more than a car wash does... unless that car wash is owned by Walter White.

justingoblue

May 5th, 2015 at 3:06 PM ^

To go a step further, you can become a liability in pretty much any profession for things that wouldn't raise a red flag in another*. An income tax evasion conviction wouldn't end a pro sports career, but I'd imagine accounting firms wouldn't be lining up to hire you. A history of marijuana possession charges wouldn't kill a comedian's career, but getting into law enforcement would be extremely hard.

*Obviously something violent would be a red flag almost everywhere.

Lanknows

May 5th, 2015 at 3:13 PM ^

Great point. It seems like one of the big issues here is that many people want to see punishment imposed, not just on the court, but at the job.  So, if a projected top 10 pick drops to the second or third round based on off-field issues, people are pretty comfortable with that.

In Clark's case, he actually went HIGHER than expected, which makes people even more uncomfortable because it spits at the perception that off-field stuff matters.  At the time this incident got out people theorized Clark would go undrafted (most on the Mgoboard thought he'd at least drop to 6th or 7th round).

But off-field doesn't matter. This is the NFL.  I'm just surprised anyone is surprised. 

Ace and the Seattle writers raise some important issues here...but would the ink still get spilled if was drafted in round 7 or a free agent?  Should it matter?

kehnonymous

May 5th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^

Likely Seattle will have zero tolerance for any future issue.

Yyyyyyeah.  Therein lies the problem - the Seahawk's lack of due diligence there leads me to believe otherwise.  Maybe they will be watching Frank Clark with an unflinching eye, if only because it's now politically untenable for them to do anything less.  But what if it'd been another 2nd or 3rd rounder with a DV incident where their lax background check had not broken publically in such an embarassing fashion?  Especially if it'd been a player who panned out on the field?  This really gives the lie to the NFLs dog-and-pony show where it play-acts giving a shit about domestic violence.  At this point, pretty much the ONLY silver lining here to the sad Frank Clark situation is that it was the one time in 2014 that Michigan football didn't royally fuck up how something related to its team was handled.

allezbleu

May 5th, 2015 at 1:29 PM ^

is not that Clark got drafted (because he does deserve a second chance). The issue is the Seahawks pretending like they did an actual investigation and then publicly stating that they think the victim is full of it.

Gulo Gulo Luscus

May 5th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^

that's really not the issue, though.  that's the context in which ace is talking about the much larger issue of domestic violence and football's ongoing image issue.  a team that says "we did the full investigation and drafted him anyway" or "we didn't really investigate that" isn't going to get a great response for telling the truth.

the "bombshell article" from the seattle times should be titled "newsflash: nfl draft pick has checkered legal past, is drafted anyway"

RHammer - SNRE 98

May 5th, 2015 at 2:25 PM ^

I am appreciative of Ace's viewpoint as it places Clark's saga in the overall context of whether the response of the league or its teams and the attention they give to domestic violence after the Ray Rice investigation/suspension is credible or merely lip service.

From my perspective, the Seattle Times piece and Ace's commentary here is a pretty clear indication that, at least in this instance, the team has bungled its handling of the issue in a way that calls into question (at a minimum) their ability to credibly state that they are approaching domestic violence issues with all appropriate attention & seriousness.  what shows through in both pieces is that, in a day and age when archival footage, background checks, and in-depth character interviews are S.O.P. for high-level draft picks, the Seahawks did a cursory job, at best, in looking into a known domestic violence issue with one of the highest picks on its draft board.  

So not only is it an unnecessary PR disaster for all involved, it demonstrates that the domestic violence issue appears to be a low-level concern for one of the higher-profile teams in the league, even in the aftermath of Ray Rice; that, to me, is worthy of attention (assuming one is interested in reducing the number of incidents of domestic violence)

Gulo Gulo Luscus

May 5th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^

the bigger picture wasn't lost on me, i just find it disingenuous to suggest the issue is merely the "cursory job."  if they did a comprehensive job and drafted him anyway, there would still be potential for PR disaster because you're not taking the issues seriously enough.  

so how does an NFL GM give appropriate attention to domestic violence in this situation?  merely a hypothetical, but i think it's the real question.  ace already answered for me in spades below.

FauxMichBro

May 5th, 2015 at 1:03 PM ^

ehh we'll never real know what happened...all we have as evidence is what an 8 year old was saying. harbaugh even sent out a congratulatory tweet when frank was drafted.

ST3

May 5th, 2015 at 3:04 PM ^

Ace was real nice to link to it. There is also eye-witness testimony from a 15 year old who was in the room, and 42 and 43 year old witnesses who were next door. But just keep talking out of your ass, it fits your avatar perfectly.

Bando Calrissian

May 5th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^

I can't look at Clark without the image of those kids running down a hotel hallway yelling "Frank's killing our sister!"

Wish the Seahawks had thought hard about that. But, apparently, they don't really care all that much. That's the NFL in 2015.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

ijohnb

May 5th, 2015 at 3:03 PM ^

the guy doesn't know the definition of hearsay, and only understands "due process" in the most generic sense, but he raises legitimate issues nonetheless.  "Charged" should never take on the same meaning as "convicted" in any forum as it relates to criminal activity.

In reply to by ijohnb

The Squid

May 5th, 2015 at 3:26 PM ^

Yeah, but so what? The NFL is not a court of criminal justice. They get to decide who does and does not play in their league. Being found guilty of a crime is a simple yardstick for evaluating whether they don't want someone in their league, but it certainly doesn't have to be the only yardstick.

ijohnb

May 5th, 2015 at 3:40 PM ^

raises other ancillary issues that are problematic.  A yardstick should be objective, it should not fluctuate with public opinion or the "hot button" issue of the day.  A criminal conviction for domestic abuse is a good yardstick, being charged with it and the existence of "those two people that said it happenned in the police report" is not.  People actually clamoring for disciplinary action and for opportunities to be taken away based on allegations and not convictions is what is truly stunning about this peice and the reactions to it.  It reflects a fairly disturning trend in our country. 

In reply to by ijohnb

The Squid

May 5th, 2015 at 3:42 PM ^

First, Clark was found guilty because he pled to a reduced charge.

Secondly, criminal justice is something that informs public opinion but public opinion can and does diverge from trial results. I mean, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman. Ergo, he didn't do, right? And he must be an okay guy, right?

ijohnb

May 5th, 2015 at 3:49 PM ^

he is a very nice guy, because he is in prison after being found guilty of armed robbery. 

I understand the criminal justice system.  I understand the burdens that are in place and why they exist.  If you find yourself comparing somebody to OJ Simpson to make a point it is typically a misguided one.

The Squid

May 5th, 2015 at 4:22 PM ^

Seriously? You think that he's not a nice guy because he's in jail for armed robbery? Not because he probably MURDERED two people even though he was found not guilty? Hoooo-key-doke.

And I'm not comparing Frank Clark to OJ Simpson. I'm presenting OJ as example of where public opinion diverges from the results of the criminal justice system.

In reply to by ijohnb

BiSB

May 5th, 2015 at 3:31 PM ^

But again, he wasn't just charged. He was charged and pled guilty (albeit to a lesser offense). 

Now, does a guilty plea automatically mean he did exactly what he was accused of? Of course not. But it isn't a matter of waiting for the legal system to sort things out. 

The broader point is that there is a gaping chasm of difference between constitutional and legal rights in a criminal proceeding and the reaction of the general public (like, say, a potential employer). It's the reason the Seahawks asked him about it in the first place, even though the legal aspects were resolved; an employee's prior inappropriate conduct (whether illegal or just unsavory, and even if he's already "paid his due to society") is absolutely relevant in a job interview. 

RHammer - SNRE 98

May 5th, 2015 at 2:44 PM ^

When someone testifies or contributes to a police report after having directly witnessed an event, their testimony/statement is not "hearsay."  That is direct witness testimony.

[pulls out legal dictionary]

"Hearsay Rule - a rule that declares not admissible as evidence any statement other than that by a witness while testifying at the hearing and offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated. ...If, for example, a witness's statement as to what he heard another person say is elicited to prove the truth of what the other person said, it is hearsay;"

#themoreyouknow

BiSB

May 5th, 2015 at 5:20 PM ^

Things can be hearsay, they can be not hearsay, they can be non-hearsay (which is different than "not hearsay"), and they can fall under a hearsay exception (which is different than the first three things).

Police reports meet the general definition of hearsay (as they are the words of an officer relaying what a witness said), and are generally inadmissible as hearsay, even though they would seem to fall under the "books and records" exception to the hearsay rule.

But yeah, while the report itself would be hearsay, the fact remains that it contains first-person accounts. So if we're just talking about it in the colloquial "you can't trust hearsay because it is a game of telephone," then this stuff isn't that.

Hearsay sucks.

 

Honk if Ufer M…

May 6th, 2015 at 8:25 PM ^

"But yeah, while the report itself would be hearsay, the fact remains that it contains first-person accounts. So if we're just talking about it in the colloquial "you can't trust hearsay because it is a game of telephone," then this stuff isn't that.

Hearsay sucks."

Actually it's worse than a game of telephone in this case. In a random game of telephone the majority of participants are probably trying to be as accurate and truthful as possible. Police reports are an established category of things that are notoriously unreliable and often doctored. A police report involves editing, simplifying & translating even when it's intending to be neutral & innocuous.

I'm not saying that they are always false, but even if nothing is falsified not everything is in it that was said and not every question that could've been asked was asked or asked in the best way. The cop's impressions of the people interviewed, and his belief or disbelief of the people might be different than that of the people hiring him.

The questions an employer might have about the situation might be broader in scope or different than what's relevant to a police report or the court case.

If a co-worker complains that you said something nasty and disrespectful to her in a totally unacceptable way and betrayed all sorts of things about himself in what and the way he said it and this behavior gets reported to the boss and the boss talks to all involved and believes the story and wants to fire the "offender," that's generally the employers right to do so based on their own standards of behavior even if no criminal laws were broken. Therefore the employer can make a judgment about Clark or anyone else, based on virtually any criteria outside of specifically illegal criteria such as race, gender, etc.

So if they really wanted to get a feel for what happened, how he acted, what he was like, then probably only talking to the witnesses themselves would give them any sense of things other than Frank's version of events. I think you can determine this isn't a guy you want to be around or expose others to without making a legal determination of guilt.

I have my own experience with him on one occasion that I won't detail for various reasons. I could give my impressions if that's acceptable without telling the story.

 

Ziff72

May 5th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

The initial report was pretty bad.   They had witnesses.   Clark basically got off with a slap on the wrist.

For those that know more of the legal system.  Is this a common plea in these situations?   Could it be that Frank Clark is innocent or is this just well done legal manuevering by his lawyer?