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

His Dudeness

May 5th, 2015 at 1:17 PM ^

So he plead down to a lesser penalty which normally means neither party wanted to go to trial (most often neither lawyer wants to go to trial and advises for this as well because time is money), but that also means that in the eyes of the law he is, in fact,  innocent of the original crime.

That's what always kills me about these things and I dont think people quite understand. Apparently people here, Ace and the court of public opinion have declared Frank as being guilty but that couldn't be further from the truth. He is, in fact, innocent of the crime he was originally arrested for.  

The sausage being made in the legal system is quite awful indeed especially given the oft impossibility of proof in these situations. It is often he said she said and rarely ever goes to trial.

 

Erik_in_Dayton

May 5th, 2015 at 1:56 PM ^

First - and this is admittedly somewhat academic - a court never says you're innocent.  It will only say you're not guilty.  I also highly doubt that Clark's plea agreement asserted that he was not guilty of any given charge.   

Second, society doesn't have to treat not guilty in the eyes of the law as the equivalent of not guilty in fact, so to speak.  OJ Simpson comes to mind as person who most of us are comfortable treating as a murderer even though he was found not guilty in his criminal trial.  An even more stark example, in a sense, is the fact that employers in Colorado can screen employees for marijuana use even though marijuana use isn't illegal in that state.

My larger point is that neither the NFL nor the public has to drop this issue as a result of Clark's plea agreement.  What exactly should be done re: Clark is another issue, one that is admittedly hard to resolve. 

ijohnb

May 5th, 2015 at 3:14 PM ^

are the exact same thing, unless you are bringing God into the equation.  There is absolutely no practical difference between the two.  "Innocence" is the opposite of "guilt."  To be "innocent" of a crime is to be "not guilty" of it.

In reply to by ijohnb

taistreetsmyhero

May 5th, 2015 at 3:52 PM ^

in a criminal case and still be forced to pay tons of money in a civil case regarding the same matter. i don't think anyone is up for making "innocent" people pay. there's just a different burden of proof.

the reason the difference is relevant is because there are different burdens of proof in different forums.

In reply to by ijohnb

Yeoman

May 5th, 2015 at 8:51 PM ^

...that the only thing you could possibly be fired for--or, even more bizarre, in this case not hired for--is a criminal violation? What employer guarantees you due process in a job interview?

There's a small set of rules governing how an employer can go about making a hiring decision. They can't discriminate against certain defined classes of prospective employees; otherwise they can pretty much hire who they damn well please and they don't owe the prospects any explanations.

In reply to by ijohnb

Honk if Ufer M…

May 6th, 2015 at 9:08 PM ^

An employment vetting IS a form of private trial in a sense. Are you seriously saying you don't think people should be able to not hire particular people based on plain old gut feeling? I don't trust him/her. I don't think they're being honest.  They give off a bad vibe, etc. etc.?

Shouldn't you be objecting to employers questioning one's marital status and other personal or extracurricular things they ask about since it's not directly relevant to job skills, nor are they legal matters? Why is it ok for an employer to judge one's character in any form or use any background check info outside of convictions?

What about firing somebody for having a continual very bad attitude that negatively effects the workplace? Is that ok? If so, isn't it also ok to determine ahead of time that someone has an attitude or pattern not worth getting involved with? Or is everything and everyone fine and dandy for every employment situation as long as they weren't convicted of something?


 

In reply to by ijohnb

umumum

May 6th, 2015 at 12:32 AM ^

you couldn't be more wrong.  There is no such thing as  an innocent ruling.  Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt requires a heavy burden bordering on certainty of guilt.  That means many guilty people walk.  That is our system of justice.  There are a multitude of reasons that Clark may have been able to plead out--witness reluctance, attorney-prosecutor-judge relationship, case backlog, cost or uncertainty of getting a conviction. Plea bargains are a reality in our legal system.  But that doesn't mean that Clark didn't do what he was originally charged with.

ijohnb

May 6th, 2015 at 7:17 AM ^

legally my position is the only correct one. The burden establishes the distinction. A person not so proven guilty is not guilty. Your position gets more into ideas of "natural law" and abstract ideas of morality, and that is an area the NFL has no business in.

In reply to by ijohnb

umumum

May 6th, 2015 at 5:51 PM ^

I don't like taking such a certain position, but mine is the legal analysis .  I say that as ..... a lawyer.   Check out BiSB's posts.  He explains it (perhaps better than I).  He too is a lawyer.

In reply to by ijohnb

Honk if Ufer M…

May 6th, 2015 at 9:26 PM ^

So if you witness a 270 pound employee of yours drink a 5th of liquor & then beat a 125 pound woman unconscious in response to an argument that escalated into a small object being thrown at him in your office, but for whatever reason they're not charged or not convicted of an assault then you consider it not to have happened? You'll say that person is innocent? You won't discipline or fire them? You won't think them too dangerous & violent to have around, especially when you find out there's a pattern of outlaw or unacceptable behavior?

BiSB

May 5th, 2015 at 1:44 PM ^

Not only does "not guilty" not mean "innocent," Clark wasn't even "not guilty."  He pled to a lesser offense based on the same event and facts. So, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty.

Ace and the others raising this issue aren't saying he's guilty. We're saying the Seahawks didn't CARE if he did what he was alleged to have done, and to claim they did a thorough investigation when they only talked to Clark is, legally speaking, weak shit. 

The Squid

May 5th, 2015 at 1:58 PM ^

And even worse, they appear to be backing his preposterous claim that he didn't assault his girlfriend (modulo "hit" vs. "assault"). To me, that's the real jaw-dropper here. Not that he was arrested or pled or whatever. It's that he continues to lie or, at a minimum, dissemble about something awful, and the Seahawks are just fine and dandy with that *and* willing to publicly say that he didn't do anything wrong. It beggars the imagination.

Gulo Gulo Luscus

May 5th, 2015 at 2:04 PM ^

i appreciate the ability to point things out that are overlooked.  there's value in that and ace is entirely right to say the seahawks aren't doing anyone any favors by claiming they did anything but valued perceived talent over perceived character.

but i think the whole "seahawks didn't CARE" angle is not what anyone's upset about.  that's a pretty thin veil.  if you think that frank clark doesn't deserve to get drafted based on all available information then just say it.

to be honest, i wouldn't disagree entirely.  it would be a huge step for a team to outwardly state "we have reviewed all information about his activities and behavior to date and will not draft [insert player here]."  it's not unrealistic in other industries and would be a seismic shift if you buy into the athletes as role models narrative.

BiSB

May 5th, 2015 at 2:14 PM ^

I don't think it's that he didn't deserve to get drafted. For me at least, I'm more miffed that they literally said "we don't think it happened," which is a REALLY hard conclusion to come to with the available evidence. This does a disservice to pretty much everyone.

If people are upset that he was a second rounder, it's because after an NFL team priced in the negative aspects of this, Clark was still picked at what most would argue was the highest he could realistically go from a purely football standpoint. In other words, they didn't see it as being a substantive negative.

DGB is Megatron-level talented, and he fell like 30 spots for what he did. Shane Ray fell a dozen spots or so because WEEEEEED. Clark, notsomuch.

The Squid

May 5th, 2015 at 2:27 PM ^

Exactly. c.f., "we think that he made a mistake but we also think that he's contrite and will represent us well going forward" vs. "we think that he didn't do it". There's a giant, yawning canyon between those two.

Gulo Gulo Luscus

May 5th, 2015 at 2:30 PM ^

that's an interesting comparison on non-violent legal issues relative to damaged draft stock.  would make for an interesting "how bad does the NFL think crime [x} is?" metric.

but i think with these specfiic examples, it's more a factor of DGB/shane ray being higher profile/first-round caliber players.  what percentage of seahawks fans do you think knew about frank's past at the time he was drafted?

i do agree that the seahawks "we don't think it happened" is an affront to everyone involved.  i just think it should have been clear this post would stir up a conversation about domestic violence and frank's issue in particular more than make us wonder why NFL GMs are dishonest.  even if that very dishonesty is a huge part of a bigger problem: cash rules everything around me.

The Squid

May 5th, 2015 at 1:07 PM ^

Clark didn't hit her? Is that supposed to be some lawyerly distinction between "struck" and "assaulted"? If that's what he and the Seahawks are rolling with, it's some pretty weak sauce.

Salinger

May 5th, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^

I agree with what a lot of folks have already said on this. 

1. Frank had his day in court.
2. If the league clears him to play, he should be able to play.
3. Come on, Frank. Just say you did wrong.
4. Come on, Seattle. Do your jobs. Make the phone calls. Put out a statement that says "We've done our due diligence (and let that actually be true) and we have a zero strikes policy with Frank. His employment, in no uncertain terms, is predicated on there being zero issues with domestic violence in the future."

Call it a day. You give the kid a chance to show he's reformed and you are prepared to cut him lose the moment he does not live up to his end of the bargain.

AA_native

May 5th, 2015 at 1:27 PM ^

 

I'm sorry, "calling it a day" is equivalent to saying you can beat someone up if you are already or are going to be a famous athlete. 

The problem with this is that he was treated differently by the court, by the police, and by the Seahawks because of who he is.  and that is not just.  and thus not fair for anyone, as Ace pointed out. 

Thank you, Ace, for writing this piece, and thank you MGOBLOG for publishing it.

AA_native

May 5th, 2015 at 2:05 PM ^

You're right - I was not there. 

That said, I worked for a prosecutor's office for 4 1/2 years.  Based on that experience I am convinced if you compared the key facts of the case with similar cases, and you redacted the names of the persons involved and looked at the outcomes (findings of guilt/innocence and sentencing) you would see that he was treated differently by the court, the police, and by potential future employers. 

Salinger

May 5th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^

Saying "call it a day" was in poor taste. What I was trying to say was "and let things proceed from here."

If Seattle had done true due diligence and proceeded to hold Frank accountable for any further bad behavior up to and including termination, I would have felt like they had handled the situation the right way.

 

bronxblue

May 5th, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^

The cynic in me says he already got his second chance after stealing the laptop back as a freshman.  He then played reasonably well for a couple of years before this incident in the hotel.  The reason he is getting yet another chance (while collecting a couple million dollars) is because he is big, fast, and strong in a way most people aren't.  I get that's life, but just because you had your day in court (and by "court" we mean pleading down to a lesser offense, and let's not ignore that means he is admitting fault to some form of assault) doesn't mean your past stops being noted by others.

I hope Clark doesn't screw this opportunity up again.  But the reason why there has been a uptick in professional athletes being identified as abusers isn't because they are doing it more often than in the past, only that fans/media are starting to pay attention and hold the players/teams accountable.  Frank Clark's a big boy; he's going to be paid millions to play football.  But part of that deal is that some people are going to look at his past and take him to task for it.  So far he and the Seahawks haven't handled it all that well; I'm for giving him a chance to rectify that, but I for one won't forget it just because the Seahawks were too lazy/scared to follow up.

BursleysFinest

May 5th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

1. Seahawks are doing lip-service. They wanted Clark, and did the least amount of due diligence possible so that they could justify it.

2. In the very PR-conscious NFL, I could see the Seahawks being more afraid of the events if they did interview the victim. If they interview her and still draft him, the move looks even worse.  They now take a small PR hit but have an out (We didn't know, we should have looked deeper) if things go bad.   Also the added danger of the interview going bad (which wouldn't be much of a surprise since Scouts/Team execs aren't trained to handle questioning like that, even if they are good intentioned) and the victim feeling the interview was inappropriate or too aggressive. That could blow up in their faces (similar to the Cowboys with Dez Bryant) just as much.

TLDR: NFL teams care about winning and nothing else (including domestic violence).  They will play the PR game only as necessary to keep the machine going.    

maize-blue

May 5th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^

Clark performed too well at the combine. There were probably a number of teams trying to decide how to spin it if they drafted him. The bottom line for NFL teams is about money and winning, period.

ypsituckyboy

May 5th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^

Doing a thorough investigation and drafting him in the 2nd round doesn't tell me the Seahawks are any more serious about domestic violence than if they didn't do any investigation and took him in the 2nd round.

TransplantedWo…

May 5th, 2015 at 1:28 PM ^

Ace, while your conclusion might be accurate regarding the level of investigation that was conducted, it might not be and it really isn't supported by anything reported in the article you cite.  The article states: "the Seahawks issued a statement saying the team conducted “confidential interviews with people directly involved with the case.  But other than Clark, the statement added, the team did not “speak directly to any witnesses from that night.’’  That does not mean that the Seahawks only spoke with Clark as you seem to conclude.  In fact, it likely means the Seahawks spoke with the police, they spoke with a representative for the victim (it would not be strange at all for her to have an attorney now), and possibly someone from the DAs office.  Other than Clark there were five witnesses.  It would be inappropriate for the Seahawks to speak with three of them - the two children and the victim.  This is especially so if the victim is represented by counsel, or if the victim did not return an initial phone call.  This leaves the other two individuals who were staying in the room next door.  However, the article states that the police never followed up with these individuals.  It's possible the police did a bad job investigating the case and the Seahawks should have reached out to these witnesses on their own, or it's just as possible (if not more likely) that the police felt it was unnecessary to follow-up either because of statements made by the victim who was there during the incident and not after the fact, or because the police had other reasons not to follow-up with those witnesses.

Bottom line is either folks trust Seattle's due dilligence or they don't, but nothing reported indicates they didn't do their due diligence, and absent Seattle laying out a detailed account of what they did do (which I doubt they ever would) nothing ever will.

Bottom line is the artices bashing Seattle now would be more honest if they simply said someone like Clark who was accused of such abhorent conduct should never be drafted.  That is a perfectly valid position.  Attacking an investigation they have no details about with a police report that was available to all is baseless and just poor journalism. 

Yostbound and Down

May 5th, 2015 at 1:53 PM ^

I somewhat agree, the same thing was said when the Bucs should have interviewed Winston's accuser and failed to...and the retort is, why in the world should she do anything to help the Bucs? Her position is obvious, as is Clark's. This is just PR horseshit being shoveled by the Seahawks, but to think it's their place to actually interview those witnesses is absurd.

The thrust of the article is well stated, nice writing Ace.

wolverine1987

May 5th, 2015 at 3:47 PM ^

I'm troubled by Ace's (and the vast majority of the board) conclusion that the Seahawks did nothing, which as the post above states, is not supported by the article he cites. And he is right on the other bottom line as well, that it is far more honest just to come out and say Clark doesn't deserve a chance to play in the NFL (a stance I'd respect but still disagree with) at all.

growler4

May 5th, 2015 at 1:32 PM ^

I'm not sure what anyone really expects here.

Clark went though the judicial process. Perhaps some don't like the outcome, but it is what it is. He subsequently interviewed for and landed a job.

There are plenty of convicted felons walking around, after having done their time. Are we supposed to not let them become employed and move on with their lives (hopefully for the better, having learned from their mistakes)?

Why should we hold football players or any other athlete to a different standard?