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.
I think it's worth noting that whether you like or hate this piece one thing is absolutely certain. You would NEVER see the likes of it on 11 Warriors or RCMB that's for sure. Over there you might get a detailed analysis of why the women involved was a drunken, lying whore who obviously made everything up OR you may see a piece discussing just how badly the police/media screwed up the investigation and unjustly accused the poor, innocent player but you'll never EVER see anything like this. The next piece critical of one of their player's behavior either on or off the field will be the first.
The Michigan difference.
The Mgoboard also used to hold itself in high regard for not being a vehicle for a bunch of .gif posting like RCBM...times have changed...
My view towards these sort of MSU/OSU cultural comparisons is that the best thing to do is ignore the heathens and move on with the business of Michigan-manning. To paraphrase Chris Rock - YOU DOING WHAT YOU SPOSED TO
I'm not sure about "the Michigan difference" as it was a Michigan player who committed the crime, but you are 100% correct in that I cannot imagine seeing this article on a Buckeye website (for a Buckeye player, obviously).
This is a well-written piece, but I have two issues with it. First, you conflate the incident with the person. One incident doesnt make a person, only patterns of incidents make a person. You cite evidence that the Seahawks did not interview witnesses of the incident, but you dont cite evidence that they did not still do a thorough investigation of Frank. Perhaps Seattle accepted the event as reported, but are more concerned with whether Clark is open to therapy and other related programs. Perhaps what Seattle is more concerned with is predictive patterns of behavior, behavioral contexts, and thus how Frank might behave in a new context with support systems (hence, "looking forward to him succeeding in our culture here in Seattle").
The second is related to the first in that you differentiate levels of domentic violence. I know the law does this, but as a society we really shouldn't. It seems that you support classifying Clark one way if he punched his girlfriend, and a different way if he did not punch her. Thus, how Seattle views Frank should largley turn on whether he punched his girlfriend or not. The fact is, all domestic violence should all be in one category - its all domestic violence. We shouldn't pick and choose. We shouldnt give Frank an eaiser time if he pushed rather than punched his girlfriend. You either accept someone who committed domestic violence or you dont. And as stated above, I think that acceptance turns on whether its a pattern or not. So here I think Seattle got it right - what matters to them it seems is that Frank committed domestic violence, and whether he is treatable or not. And so they gave him a chance after whatever investigation they needed to do. And good for them.
Of course its not all this black and white, for at some point one incident does define a person, just as a pattern does. But I think there are other things to consider than what you do in this piece.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Ace, your first mistake was ready the Seatle Times. The heart of this is issue is just politics. Some people just hate success and want to bring down the NFL. Frank Clark did something bad that ended his college career, and he had to face the legal system. After he has paid his legal debt he has to move on and so do we.
For anyone to get a job we need someone to take a chance on us. If we have a questionable history we must show that our upside is worth the risk that we will not regress. The Seahawks took that chance on Clark, and I don't think most have a problem with this. The problem comes when you alledge they didn't do thier due diligence. This statement is just false. A second round pick in the NFL draft is a huge deal they are taking a risk no matter who they pick. I am confident they truly belive they know clark and believe him to be worth a chance here. The Seahawks may not have talked to the victim or witness, but its likely they would say the same thing to told police, which leads right back to the legal system and he has paid for his crime.
The NFL has no more responsabilty than any other employer, but they are More responsible, because they take more risk. If you think the NFL cares less about domestic violence than any other business then you aren't living in the real world.
They may not care less about it than other businesses, but that doesn't square with how Goodell likes to trumpet the league as some sort of moral compass for the country. It's one thing to say that football is a great game that can teach people many things (indeed, our head coach and his brother have both made this point) but to claim the NFL has some sort of higher standard is garbage. How can the Seahawks have done "due diligence" when Clark said he never hit any one and the testimony of all other witnesses contradicts this?
What the Seahawks really did was say "screw it, this guy's a great football player, we're content to deal with the consequences of signing him, and we'll try to spin the PR accordingly." It's somewhat understandable but it's still sleazy.
This isn't a political issue or an issue of "the haters" going after the league, it's a hypocrisy issue that rests squarely with the Ginger Hammer and how he has chosen to portray the NFL as some sort of a City on a Hill when in reality, it's not much different from Ford, or Boeing, or Walmart, or Baskin Robbins. It's goal is capitalism which is amoral. Tagliabue never conducted himself this way and that's what ticks me off at least. I have no issue with the NFL's popularity (only hope that it doesn't crowd out the other sports too much) but their actions certainly don't seem very ethical in many cases, this situation being one.
I am just not buying it. I honestly can't belive the Seahawks would just not care about the past of a guy most believe is a stretch for a second round draft pick. I think Seatle actually belives Frank over the victim and witness, or believe it wasn't as bad as they said.
As for Goodell, I have no use for him, but don't think he is a bad guy. The NFL has some bad stuff in the past. Mostly hiding information about concussions.They have also done a lot of good.
For me its about letting the legal system work first. After which the employer must decide if the employee is worth keeping. This is why I think its politcal, because no other industry faces this kind of scrutiny for a few of its members.
Anyway I hope Frank can keep out of trouble and that Seatle made a good choice.
They can believe Frank if they want but he was literally guilty in the eyes of the court. IMO, not a good look to preach you won't consider someone who puts hands on a woman and then went and did that.
Goodell is a bad dude. He's contributed to covering up the concussion stuff (League of Denial as an example) and judges with no consistency or accountability.
I agree that Clark shouldn't be excluded from football and I'm even fine with Seattle drafting him when they did (I think it's a stupid personnel move, but that's beside the point).
One difference between MGoBlog and 11W is that if Frank Clark played for them, they would have believed his story and covered his ass with an article about how he really shaped up and is gonna go all-pro his rookie year.
What have they been saying about the kid who committed suicide(likely depression related)--back-up lineman? Seems like he continued to practice after having numerous concussions. This blog freaked out over a single play with Morris, let alone the circumstances for this very sad situation.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
...is that they used a 2nd round pick on the guy. This wasn't a minor offense for marijuana possession. They must really want to be labelled the bad guys of the NFL.
I think it's a stretch to say that the Seahawks didn't conduct their due diligence by not speaking to the eye wittnesses, because at the very least, their statements would have been in the police/ court record. Also, since they never testified, Clark''s lawyer never had a chance to cross-examine them (and therefore allow us to judge their credibility).
amazes me that people are so stunned when someone from the world of violent contact sports like boxing or football has trouble controlling themselves and has violent outbursts. People that are drawn to sports like that because its in their nature and/or its a constructive outlet for violence. Its the same when we raise kids up to be good people then send them off to war to kill and then are surprised when they come home with psychological problems. I am not justifying Clark's behavior here just an observation about exectations and reality.
Maybe, but I don't think the rates of physical violence for "violent" sports athletes are different than for "regular" people.
Here's the abstract: http://m.asr.sagepub.com/content/72/5/705.abstract
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
For those in a domestic violence situation:
Internet: www.thehotline.org
Live Chat is available on the website.
Ph: 1-800-799-7233
24/7 phone support.
A) Companies do perform lots of background checks at least as stringent as the courts do in prosecuting a crime. And when that person may be paid millions of dollars to represent your organization on national TV, I'd hope they would have looked a bit deeper than asking the guy accused of hitting a woman what happened on that night.
B) Frank Clark is, by legal definition, a guilty man. He pled down to 4th degree assault, but he still pled guilty to hitting his gf. It wasn't treated as seriously as it could have been, but even HE admits to having hit this woman.
I'm not sure why this is hard to accept when companies can refuse to hire you because they don't like your shoes or because you chewed gum during your interview.
We're not talking about refusing to hire here. We're talking about Seattle HIRING him and that somehow they shouldn't have (or investigated in more detail or whatever).
Ace asserted that the Seahawks should have scrutinized Clark's incident more thoroughly before drafting him, and people are arguing against that. We already live in a society in which people are scrutinized for significantly less serious matters when it comes to hiring, and the people arguing against Ace are ignoring that. You could argue that employers shouldn't be allowed to not hire you because you wear funny pants or because you have an annoying laugh, but I haven't seen anyone do that.
I know right? He seems innocent and not guilty as hell. I think you should try to set your daughter up on a date with him. The court has judged him fine bf material according to your standards. Since when is it a concerned family member's place to do the courts job for them?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I'm happy that Frank got drafted and will get his chance in the pros. I don't think it's fair that a woman can attack a man, bite a chunk out of his nose, and face zero repercussions simply because she's a woman. Meanwhile he hits her once after she attacked him and everyone is out with their pitchforks simply because he's a man. I think most people here would respond similarly when drunk and attacked, and I think it's an understandable response.
There was an article linked on this board during 2014 pre-season about Frank Clark’s troubled, difficult childhood.
It might be easy to forget that Frank Clark was one of Michigan’s three representatives (with Jake Ryan and Devin Gardner) at Big Ten Football Media Day last July.
Was able to help him not boot the ball for a touchback at crucial times.
Everyone deserves a second chance; I'm glad Clark got one.
I disagree with this article; I gaurantee you Seattle knows what they are getting into and I am sure they looked into the incident. So I officially respectfully disagree.
I also don't think we need to be handing out high fives just because our blog took our player to task; that is one of our strengths.
I am ambivalent to Frank Clarks future.
I strongly agree with second chances and not freezing a man in time. We have to believe in growth, we have to let people grow. I am not condoning forgiveness, but lets see what he can do.
jdon
so they didn't hit the PR target. Clark's story is only just begun. There are deeper evils in the game of football than Frank Clark. The only one who can help him is ... him. Leave him to his work, judge him on his actions going forward at this point. If another incident arises... then judgement on Seattle can begin in earnest.
This is Frankly too much... IMO.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I read an editorial like this. Because MGoBlog is free.
It would be nice if editorials were put in a separate place. That way I would know that I was not missing any news when I skipped them.
As it is, however, I don't think the Seahawks failed everyone. I think they failed the family of the victim, but they didn't not fail anyone any more than other teams do when they resign or give chances to players with suspicious backgrounds. The Cincinnati Bengals are a prime example of a team that regularly signs players with records. That in no way excuses what happened with Clark, but it's a bit of a blanket statement to condemn the Seahawks for doing exactly what every other team does on a regular basis. The issue is not with the team, it's with the NFL giving lip service to victims of domestic violence but not enforcing regulations or punishing teams for signing players with criminal histories. The problem is, with the media attention span, this will be forgotten as soon as the next story crops up.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I would expect to read on a gawker site, stick to the sports analysis and leave the self-righteous social commentary to those idiots.
The Seattle Times issued somewhat of a redaction last night at 8:45pm offering an entirely different angle than the original article Ace referred to as the "Bombshell Report". Here's the link to the new article: http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seahawks/prosecutor-seahawks-draft-p…
It seems that the same Seattle Times reporter subsequently interviewed the prosecutor in the case, and she paints a very different, more redeeming picture of Frank Clark. The prosecuter wouldn't provide much in the way of details, citing confidentiality, but she did seem to suggest that responsibility for the altercation was equally on the part of both Clark and his girlfriend, Diamond Hurt. Maybe the most compellilng piece in the article was that Hurt’s mother “had nothing bad to say” about Clark when interviewed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor also seems satisfied that Clark willingly and successfully completed a lengthy 25-week educational counseling program, and she was convinced that he would not be a repeat offender.
I don't condone domestic violence in anyway, but I also think that every situation has a unique set of circumstances, so we can't draw any conclusions without knowing the full context.
my best friend's ex-wife makes $68 /hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her pay was $20922 just working on the computer for a few hours.
find more information=====>> netcash5.com
Comments