SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
It's still a civil matter. I guess it's up to the Kings PR department to determine how to continue if it blows up into some backlash.
Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)
- Thread starter Livinthedream
- Start date
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Actually, if style play and coaching lineage is anything Igor might have a better grasp than Walton on how to run the offense. I do not want to see Walton run a lot of what he did prior to LeBron in LA because it's fairly close to what Dave Joerger ran 2 years ago. Not as space crunching but there was a lot of jumble in the paint. This team needs to space and pace, not run 15 seconds off the shotclock looking for cutters every single play.
Sorry
Meant to write Luke
It's been crickets since this was announced up until the latest batch of news with Walton denying even writing the foreword for the book. If there's any truth to that denial it probably kills any ounce of credibility Tennant has.
iowamcnabb
Hall of Famer
It is a very interesting claim to make, and should be super easy to prove. I would think his lawyer would be all over this.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Handwriting specialist, please.
jcassio
Starter
Who wrote the Foreword doesn’t solve anything unless SHE wrote it and put his name to it WITHOUT his permission. And that would either be brazen on her part, or speak to the familiarity between them.
It wouldn’t be that unusual to have someone like Luke say, “yeah, write something up for me and I’ll take a look at it.” But taking “a look at it” would normally be prior to the book being published. If it comes out that Luke told her she could write the Foreword and put his name to it without him reading and approving it, that won’t look good for Luke’s integrity (or hers). But it still wouldn’t prove his guilt.
Frankly, I don’t think the Foreword issue moves the needle for either one of them. I think it ends up being more mud added to the water.
It wouldn’t be that unusual to have someone like Luke say, “yeah, write something up for me and I’ll take a look at it.” But taking “a look at it” would normally be prior to the book being published. If it comes out that Luke told her she could write the Foreword and put his name to it without him reading and approving it, that won’t look good for Luke’s integrity (or hers). But it still wouldn’t prove his guilt.
Frankly, I don’t think the Foreword issue moves the needle for either one of them. I think it ends up being more mud added to the water.
John Galt
Starter
If Luke's defense is "she is lying", and he can demonstrate some other lies she has told ("Luke wrote the forward to this book"), then I would think that at least for some jurors it would move a needle.
Kangztillidie
Bench
Indeed. Great news. Now let's get on to some hoops!!
The Sac Bee article (here) has essentially the same details. One small difference is that the Bee article mentions that since Tennant refused to cooperate, the investigators relied on her public statements and details from her lawsuit.
Obviously, I don't know what happened and being cleared is not necessarily the same thing as being innocent, but it does strike me as odd that Tennant is actively pursuing a civil suit and gave details for that lawsuit but was unwilling to either press charges or be a part of this investigation.
I suppose we'll never know the full truth.
Obviously, I don't know what happened and being cleared is not necessarily the same thing as being innocent, but it does strike me as odd that Tennant is actively pursuing a civil suit and gave details for that lawsuit but was unwilling to either press charges or be a part of this investigation.
I suppose we'll never know the full truth.
Section 101
All-Star
Cleared by the nba and kings for lack of evidence to support the allegations. This has no bearing on the civil suit. Poor choice of wording to say he was cleared.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
You won’t.
Kings_of_California
Starter
I haven't been following this case at all, but having just read that the woman did NOT participate in the investigation...what? She's the one who filed it, I'm not sure I understand this.
fansinceday1
Starter
IMO, the lady didn't participate in the criminal investigation because criminally, she had ****. Nothing.
Civilly, that bar is extremely low. That case will move forward.
IMO if there was something there, the NBA investigation would have moved on it. The NBA isn't the NFL who is constantly stepping all over themselves and can't do anything right.
I find the lack of evidence the alleged victim has put forth thus far along with the bits that Luke and his team have gone public with (notably that he did not author the foreword as claimed) and the failure to participate in an investigation to be very alarming. It seems all the eggs of the alleged victim have been placed in her civil suit which should be the least important focus of these allegations if they are true. Given this latest development I hope that a judge dismisses this suit so we can finally be done with the matter.
ockingsfan
Starter
Apparently, she is more interested in trying to get Luke's money in a civil lawsuit, as opposed to seeing that Luke gets a rightful punishment or that she gets justice for his alleged "transgressions".
The end game seems to be very apparent in this lawsuit, and that is to get some money from Luke.
There was never a criminal investigation, and there is not likely to ever be one as it does not appear Tennant will file a criminal complaint. The investigation that Tennant refused to cooperate with was the internal NBA investigation.
I don't quite know what to think about Tennant's refusal to cooperate with the NBA's investigation. I have once been a plaintiff in a relatively small (no legal representation) civil suit. If the defendant's employer had opened up an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the civil suit I would have been more than happy to detail the defendant's behavior, which I was somewhat angry about. But, my party was not represented by a lawyer, and it may well be that in a case with much larger amounts of money at stake that a lawyer would frown on the plaintiff cooperating with such an investigation, for lawyerly reasons that would not necessarily be prejudicial to the case.
I am sure her lawyer advised her not to participate as anything she says may harm her civil trial if she ever contradicts herself. The question remains was her goal coming forward strictly to get money out of this or was the goal to expose improper behavior and make sure the guilty party doesn't continue?
Dime Dropper
All-Star
This is correct. I've no idea if Walton is guilty or not, but her refusal to cooperate in this investigation is not surprising, nor is it a sign that she's lying. She might be, but this isn't an indicator of it. She was likely advised not to tip her hand by providing the information that she will use in her civil case.
From a strictly rational point of view, this is not necessarily a sign that she is lying, as many here seem to believe.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
For those wondering why Tennant did not participate in the investigation, there's a pretty good article by the Bee examining the issue: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/nba/sacramento-kings/article234317852.html
LPKingsFan
All-Star
I would not say "regardless of the civil suit outcome," no. Until the civil suit outcome? Maybe. That outcome will not come anytime soon, though.
ockingsfan
Starter
Unless Luke comes out and admits that he did what she has alleged, this civil lawsuit will be a "he said she said" suit. Regardless of who the jury or judge sides with, there is no criminality being determined on this case.
So, regardless of outcome, I can't see any severe NBA punishment, i.e. termination or league ban. But, depending on the PR spin, the worse case scenario would probably be a suspension after this case.
Dime Dropper
All-Star
He won't have to be criminally charged if her evidence is damning. The NBA would reopen it's investigation in that case and you can be sure he would be heavily punished if significant evidence comes to light during the civil case.
ockingsfan
Starter
I think her lawyer already said they have no witnesses or evidence. It's a pure "he said she said case", I believe.
