On Frank Clark, The Seahawks Failed Everyone
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.
You got downvoted for the above comment from me.
Thanks Moe
You got one anonymous downvote. Jebus, Wolverine Devotee gets 10 of those for saying the sky is blue.
You've got 16k+ points. You'll hopefully survive.
I remember the sky being overcast when WD posted that day
In 1996 bad PR over domestic violence allegations all but forced the New England Patriots to walk away from their draft choice of Christian Peter. IIRC, the club dubiously claimed it wasn't fully aware of his background when they made the pick. In all likelihood, they just didn't anticipate the huge negative backlash and pulled an about-face when that became clear.
Here we are almost 20 years later, and after a season from hell with bad PR and domestic violence a hot-button issue for the league. It sure sounds like the Seahawks are trying to pass off a dubious claim of a thorough investigation and are caught off guard by the negative backlash.
It was stunning when it happened in 1996. I don't have a word for how stunned I am in 2015.
It all comes back to what is good business--and Seattle believes they can weather the initial storm and got a very good player in the late 2nd round. They may be wrong, mind you but it's all about business.
i feel like this piece was ready before the draft. if not, it certainly could have been. any GM was going to say what schneider did. a team that had actually done the investigation and spoken to the witnesses would have "failed everyone" by drafting him even moreso.
i'm afraid, whether cleverly or cowardly, ace has said it without saying it: frank clark doesn't deserve to be in the NFL.
You captured my reaction pretty well. The problem with taking a stance like this is that you probably have not been consistent in applying it in all situations. If Clark got a shot to work for the Cleveland Police Department or Enterprise Rental in a new hire role - would Ace have written this article?
What Clark did was bad. No disagreement.
The legal system came to a conclusion that enables him to have the job he just got offered
...after seeing the Seattle Times report. I think you're very much misinterpreting the post. I think Frank Clark deserves a shot in the NFL. The way Seattle handled the investigation—poorly, in a way that has drawn a major PR backlash that could lead to Clark getting cut to save face—negatively affects Clark's opportunity to get that shot. There's a reason I said this post hurts everyone involved, and I don't think it's fair to anyone, even though Clark is far from a sympathetic figure.
If Seattle had simply acknowleged Clark's actions, stated concern regarding the police report and witness statements, and said they'd provide an environment in which they believe they could support Clark as both a football player and a human being, I wouldn't have written this post today no matter what round Clark was drafted. By not doing so, Seattle hurt everyone involved, including themselves, not that I have any sympathy for the organization itself.
and.. what would be learned by speaking with witnesses who were already given a voice in the police reports? Would they say somethng new? Their emotions don't change the fact that the charges were plead down and agreed to.
None of this hurts Clark if he is able to stay, work, and hopefully stay on the straight and narrow - is there a clause that you can be drafted by the NFL after a conviction at this level but only at certain rounds?
None of this hurts the witnesses
The victim accepted the situation so how does this hurt her afterwards (cue civil suit...)
NFL football is about winning and short of having Stalin on a team who is actively purging the ranks - they are allowed to hire who they want if they are legally available. They may also do something positive with all of this which is something you won't consider
i appreciate the reply, ace. i was being a bit snarky and think your notion that seattled failed all involved is accurate. but i would have liked to read that second paragraph in the article itself, because it felt like you were walking the line on the issue of judging frank's behavior.
i was also doing a bit of projecting to the end point of my own chain of thoughts after reading it. if one believes frank clark did what these witnesses suggest, one wouldn't be entirely out of line in choosing not to be the organization paying him millions of dollars just because he's sure to be *this much* better than the next guy on your draft board. someone taking a stand like that would go a long way.
IMO you let the emotion of the situation color your analysis of it. There are many possible ways to have a legitimate investigation by Seattle of this event, as pointed out above, yet you concluded they did nothing-and did not care to-because they didn't speak to two witnesses the police also didn't speak to (after getting their statments). That is a cynical reach.
All said and done however, I do agree that this is a bad situation all around.
I think I'm going to move on from this one. I hope Frank Clark learns from the situation and makes the best out of the opportunities he has from here on forward.
Good stuff Ace.
As soon as I saw that Clark was selected, I assumed this would be the fallout. Take him late in the 3rd/4th, and the story is that people acknowledged the major issues and yet you are taking a shot on a potential player for you. Also, you could play off (a bit) on the "we didn't expect him there, so we based much of our research on the public record" to shield your laziness. But when you take a guy in the 2nd round as one of your first 2-3 picks, you are making a positive statement that player X is the guy you wanted, and he was reasonably high-profile enough that you had discussions and did your research. Clearly the Seahawks didn't care if Frank Clark beat up his girlfriend; if anything, they seem to actively NOT care. And that's, I guess, up to them. From a football standpoint, he may work out (though I think his production certainly didn't justify a top-60 spot) But the way they've handled the public side of the situation, I agree, helps no one, and is a slap in the face to the women involved.
In the small print:
Schneider admitted that no one from the Seahawks talked to the alleged victim, Clark’s girlfriend, only speaking to counselors who had worked with the couple.
If that's true, wouldn't that have required permission from both Clark and his girlfriend? Wouldn't what the counselors told them have required an agreement of confidentiality? Or would the level of non-disclosure have been part of the agreement to allow the team to speak with the counselors?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
One interesting thing - the Bucs basically did the same lip service for Winston's victim as well. So one of the worst-run franchises and one of the best in the NFL basically said "nah, I'm good" when given the opportunity to potentially hear conflicting recollections of events relating to men they plan on paying millions of dollars to to work for them. The incompetence of the NFL is, apparently, not confined to a mere few.
you're being far too generous by calling it "incompetent." they aren't saying "nah, I'm good" because they are idiots, but because they are calculating. it's bad PR no matter what when you draft someone with a criminal history, but pleading ignorance is easier than telling the truth.
I don't like this piece.
One thing Coach Hoke handled with more integrity than most of his college football head coach peers was his policy regarding team rules. Breaking team rules and/or the law meant discipline commensurate with the scope of the act, and Brady was very consistent on doling out punishment. Hoke's internal investigation determined that Frank Clark's act was serious enough that he would be immediately dismissed from the team. If that's not a "presumed guilty" verdict by the protected inner circle of the team and its coaches, then I don't know what is; and it suggests that Clark at least partially owed up to what was suspected (!! given the photo evidence and eye witness accounts) to one or more coaches...which is different than an actual court of law, where legal gymnastics and out of court deals/settlements can obfuscate almost anything.
On the other hand, Clark has been reasonably contrite, at least enough to fit the narrative of the reduced misdemeanor level conviction. And I do believe that after people eff-up (even big time) and are punished /rehabilitated, they still deserve a chance to make a living like anyone else, otherwise taxpayers like me will be supporting that person for the duration. Having drafted him, I hope Seattle gives him a chance to be successful, and that he will in turn become a model citizen and maybe even a role model that kids can look up to.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Oh yes, that clusterfuck. Let's impugn the head coach for what appeared to be a complete screwup by the athletic department.
Brady Hoke is a lot of things, both good and bad. But I've seen nothing in the way he's acted before, during, or after Michigan to make me believe the man lacks a reasonable, human amount of integrity.
The exact same thing could be said about his handling of the Shane Morris incident. Were either of those situations completely on him? No, but he either blatantly lied or was too stupid to get to the bottom of things in both situations. Either way, I just don't see him as a person with integrity anymore.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Fair point. Your definition of integrity is different than mine, but you are entitled to it.
Why is this a failure of the NFL and the Seahawks in particular and not an indictment of the legal process?
Did law enforcement and the criminal justice system fail their due dilegence? Was Clark's punishment inadequate? If so, fix the system.
This post epitomizes one of the biggest problems of modern society - the desire that everyone, everywhere have the same mores as the group of most offended people OR be labeled as supporting a terrible thing.
We all know domestic violence is wrong. We all condemn it. But, what is the appropriate punishment? Jail time is one way society punishes someone. But, the victim can also sue for monetary daamages. One would think that would be enough, but it is not for some people.
Fine. If it is not enough for you, then have no dealings with the person. If it is not enough punishment for an employer, then that person will be fired.
If you feel very strongly that the person should no longer be employed (or only a menial level that you think fits a "bad man") then you can choose to boycot that business. But that seems pretty extreme that your view should outweight society, the victim and the employer.
That is enough punishment for a truly heinous crime.
But, its not enough for the people who are "boldly" taking a stand against something everyone thinks is horrible. No, that employer should not even have the option of hiring that person unless a FULL investigation exonerates them of the charge. Disregard the police and the victim lawsuit investigations, conduct your own. If it shows anything bad, then the clear inference is that they should not hire him.
And, if you disagree or think someone can give someones else a chance without a COMPLETE AND THOROUGH investigation, then you support domestic violence and/or it is a shame for society that the employer doesn't punish him as well.
I am sorry. Depspite the "majority view" (especially on anonymous internet pages), Frank Clark has some "minority rights." The Seahawks do too. Even though he did something horrible, he should be allowed to work in his chosen profession. Moreover, his employer should not have to re-do the criminal invesitgation. They can give the guy a second chance without doing a thorough investigation first.
If you don't like it, then fine. But, stop whining that the Seahawks should have done what you, personally, would have done and investigation AND in the likely event it shows he hit someone, refuse to hire him. Just like your personal feelings on the isse.
P.S. - Seattle's action do nothing to harm Frank Clark. Your only argument that it might is that people like yourselves might make it such an issue that Seattle feels unwarrented public pressure to cut him. But, he will just end up elsewhere. I can't believe you suggest it is Seattle's fault that you are helping spread an unwarrented backlash that could harm Frank Clark. (You are clearly fanning the flames, so don't pretend its others.) It boggles the mind. "Stop hitting yourself, Seattle" - GOB Bluthe.
The problem is that Ray Rice knocked his fiance out and the NFL did nothing because Ray Rice is a good football player and made money for the league. When the video came out, he was a liability and got cut. The NFL looked like they didn't care about domestic violence and only about profits. By drafting Frank Clark so high and not having a good story (E.g. "Frank is repentent and everyone deserves a second chance."), the Seahawks look like they don't care about domestic violence. Everyone deserves a second chance, but the Seahawks PR people suck at their jobs.
That whole thing was about a video tape. No one really cared that much about the allegations. They just didn't like seeing it.
Ray Rice didn't make much money for the league and the league prides itself as being bigger than personalities. I always thought the league did it because the NFLPA would have been offended by a big suspension and the public too --- until the public saw the video.
The NFL didn't act out of money concerns. With or without Ray they make the exact same amount of money.
As for what people want, they want ultra-violent individuals with highlight reel hits in a dangerous league -- BUT they don't want those big, scary men to be violent ALL the time. Just on the field. Also, they want them to live a public standard of morality far, far that above the average fan (who has smoked some weed, drank a bit too much, taken free items from friends at a retail store, etc.).
Fans are idiots. However, those fanning the flames of the fans' unrealistic expectations, such as media members doubling as social justice warriors, who want MOAR punishment -- in the name of the fans. Those people should know better.
"Seahawks look like they don't care about domestic violence"
Should they? It's not their job to care about domestic violence. It's the organization's job to make money and put the best team on the field that they can.
It's about business. Period. It's always been about business in America since before the founding of the Republic.
Not everyone on a roster is going to be a saint, but that's true for any walk of life. I have no doubt there are readers of this blog and maybe even posters on this topic who have hit their wives or girlfriends. This isn't a Seahawks or NFL problem. It's a societal problem. And the Seahawks aren't going to fix it by doing a thorough investigation of Frank Clark.
Good stuff, Peter.
Agree with most of your points, but people are allowed to have opinions - different from the mainstream or cringe-worthy banal.
Sure, but don't try to impose your personal opinions as what everyone else should do. Recognize it is just your "minority" view and don't assume others should abide by it.
If your opinion is that Seattle should have done a full invesitgation and, the implication is that if they found something then they should have backed off the prospect, then that can be your opinion. But, recognize it as something unique. No reason to publicly hold them to task for not doing :even more" than all the criminal, civil, etc. that has already gone on.
That part that spins my head is that the only way this hurts the player is PRECISELY because the media, social justice warriors "aren't going to let this rest." In other words, Seattle may have harmed Frank Clark's career simply because articles like this one are being written. Its almost a self-fulling prophecy.... "You put the player's career in harm because we, the media, are going to try and make this as big of a PR issue as possible for you and him." "Yeah, we are simply fanning the flames of the most over-concerned fans, but soon we will help make that view (full investigations) the norm---- because we are taking on domestic violence here and no one would dare say we went too far."
I don't care about the Michigan or fandom angle here. This is just media irresponsibility for its OWN actions and blaming them on Seattle.
<slowclap.gif>
The moral superiority complex that many around here have is just really disgusting at times.
*this is where someone should chime in and accuse me of excusing Frank's actions (or some other moral outrage that doesn't actually have anything to do with my comment).
It's successful because people like it. No one needs to watch football or buy NFL products. And people can stop liking it for whatever reason they want. Just as the NFL doesn't have to punish people for violent off-field acts, fans don't have to stick with teams that have players who've commited violent off-field acts.
I'm not arguing Frank Clark shoudln't be able to play in the NFL, but there is plenty of room to talk about the manner in which he's come into the league. You say Ace has only expressed his feelings, but what else is there with respect to the NFL? It exists only because of our feelings about it.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
...I think Ace posted this mostly because he cares about domestic violence. And there is nothing invalid about arguing that the NFL should have high standards when it comes to domestic violence. People are constantly influenced - very intentionally - by other people all the time. Watch a football game and you'll be bombarded by messages like "Drink Beer!" and "Watch more football!" Why not try to influence them in such a way that might eventually decrease domestic violence?
If Frank Clark is cut by Seattle in response to this public backlash (which I find unlikely, but still), he will definitely find it harder to obtain employment with another team. When you get marked as damaged goods, there's no reason for other teams to take on that liability. You wouldn't do that in your business dealings unless you honestly feel that the reward is worth the risk, and even in the best case Clark isn't the sure-fire type of signing that will pay off on the field.
And I know I'm arguing with the same guy who takes great pains in getting worked up over the "unfair" public scorn of fraternities, but portraying Ace's condemnation of the Seahawks for not talking to ANY witnesses at the incident except Frank Clark aka The Most Unreliable of Narrators as some faux-SJW is laughable. The Seahawks were incompetent at best in this circumstance, misled the public when pressed on it, and seem to be genuinely surprised that spending a high draft pick on an admitted assaulter of a pregnant woman is a "big deal" to use pleebs. You spend so much time arguing that Ace shouldn't impose his personal beliefs and standards on the actions of the Seahawks or Clark, but all you are doing is imposing your own beliefs on the public outcry against it.
You are entitled to your opinions, but being contrary for the sake of it, as if the bulk of us are missing some cosmic injustice via some e-lynch mob, is disingenuous.
Keep beating that imaginary drum for the downtrodden.
Again, I'm arguing with the guy who doggedly supported a frat that destroyed thousands of dollars of property at a hotel and basically framed it as a class-based witchhunt. Excuse me if I don't buy your circular argument that everyone else other than you is imposing a different morality on the situaiton.
Ace took to task a crappy research job by the Seahawks and poor handling of the situaiton by Clark and the NFL. Clark still pled to assaulting the woman, and it is perfectly reasonable for other parties to wonder why a team wouldn't try to dig a bit deeper into the situation given the claimed severity of the assault. If the situation was instead Clark had an injury at the end of the year that cut his season short, I'm guessing the Seahawks would have asked more than Frank Clark if he had recovered properly. It's laziness and a willful disregard for basic logic on the Seahawks part that other are attacking, not the idea that Frank Clark should forever be branded a terrible monster and never be given an opportunity to atone for his transgressions.
If anything, Frank Clark has gotten a far more lenient punishment than what someone else in this circumstance would have. And at no point in this article is Ace calling for Clark to be fired - he theorizes he might be let go due to the media firestorm surrounding Seattle's poor handling of the situation. If Seattle had hired an assistant GM who was fired from his last job for an assault but then pled down and a media inquiry pointed out a similar laziness in reviewing the situaiton, I'm guessing he'd be gone to.
My point is that you feel there is some point at which "what's done is done" and somebody's past shouldn't come back to haunt them. That isn't the case in life, though, and and while nobody is calling for Clark to be fired or let go, this is an ongoing opportunity for him to make good on now his third chance at being successful playing football.
And BTW, my understanding of your issues wth the frat "standard" basically came down to that you thought the hotel was trying to bilk more money from the frat than, in your estimation, the damage warranted. Which, again, is just you imposing your own morality and sense of value on a situation you know very little about.
You say Ace "theorizes [Clark] might be let go due to the media firestorm surrounding Seattle's poor handling of the situation." But, Ace is contributing to that media firestorm. He is part of the media and he wants to make this an issue. You also point out that if a GM were the subject of a similar "media inquiry" then he would be let go. Probably. The point is that media inquiry into this stuff isn't for some noble purpose. It is just an UNFORTUNATE fact of modern life.
The whole media wants to make this an issue. Why? A couple reasons:
1. There is not much else to discuss. They need somthing to talk about.
2. Seattle wasn't completely up front with the media about their investigation. The media hates it when that happens. In the name of "truth" and "honesty" they insist that decieving them is an afront to the public. The problem is that the public doesn't really care that much. So, under the guise of reporting about it, they try to get the public to care. This has little to do with morals and a lot to do with the media demanding transparency, even in situations where it is of little importance.
3. Controversy sells (clicks, etc.)
So, Ace blames Seattle for the media firestorm. Of course, the media are just innocent bystanders here in the firestorm, right? They are just reporting on it, right? Of course, these are mainly columnist opinion pieces and they are not "reporting" on the "fan frenzy" they are suggesting there should be one.
MY POINT: People pay the price for their crimes. Those prices are set up by the legal system. Most of the time they also pay informally after the fact -- often severely. But, some people -- if their situation is "newsworthy" -- pay an even deeper price due to the media's desire to talk about them and talk "bold" stands against bad actions.
The media holds public figures (or high profile) to a higher standard than the average citizen is held to and a higher standard than the media itself is held to, but they pretend they play no rin creating that higher standard or accelerating it.
It's stupid and people who blindly follow it, because that is how they are TOLD how to feel are human sheep. THAT is my opinion that I don't care if you agree with it. It is so grounded in reality, it might be called a FACT.
P.S. - I have no problem with Ace. I don't think he conciously tried to be "part of the media firestorm." He maybe didn't consider that he was fanning the flames, but I think it might have been well intentioned on an individual basis.
Klima,
So if they didn't need to make a character assessment as you suggest, then they hire him, then If the next time he loses control or lashes out results in injury or death to someone who works for Seattle should people still feel there was no need to dig deeper into a guy with these warning signs?
The ESPN talking heads were just regurgitating the facts of this story that they didn't do any original reporting on, and yet they were criticizing the Seahawks for not actually interviewing anyone…..
Brian's post on this topic seemed much more willing to trust the Seahawks due diligence.
Seattle's investigation and its backlash***, which is only just beginning, cast that into serious doubt.
Perhaps this sentence should be rewritten to more accurately portray the intent of article, which (to me) seems to both attempt to assassinate the character of Frank Clark as well as highlight a hypocrisy of the NFL. Something along the lines of
"Seattle's investigation and the resulting backlash, whose flame I have no problem fanning, and adding to a contreversy surrounding a former Michigan player who has already 'had his day in court.'"
If you are unhappy with the way the legal system works, perhaps protesting towards those in charge would be a better tact, rather than attack someone who, by today's standards, has already fulfilled his legal obligations.
Also, I certainly don't condone domestic violence.
Correct me, but didn't the Seahwaks match the NFL standard? The NFL didn't examine the Rice case at all - ask Bill Simmons for details. Jameis Winston got credit for coming clean about the crabs legs, he just failed to address the accusation of felony sexual assault. No one contacted his accuser, either. Clark got the industry standard.
It's not exactly specific to football, either. Look at the poor citizens in last weeks boxing match.
Thanks for writing this, Ace. It's good to be reminded when things are mishandled like this that we can do better.
Comments