Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
I wanted to stay out of this conversation but just watched the press conference so will say...I was happy about the Luke Walton hire, but I'm a long time Kings fan and we deserve good things, this is not good and it wont ever be good. Its unfortunate for Kelli if true, yes she is believable, and unfortunate for Luke and family if baseless. We wiill never know for sure unless Luke comes out and says the allegatiions are correct, or Kelli changes her story. The courts decesion will not erase doubt.
I can go on about having daughters myself or once being a young man with ragging hormones or timing of the allegations, or damn Lakers always screwing us but bottom line I feel its best to change course to put this distraction behind us.
So, as I said earlier in the thread, you just want to ruin Luke's career without a moment's hesitation? You think she's believable; I think there are a plethora of questions starting with timing and going back to why no police report was filed.

I'm sorry, but false allegations do happen and NO ACTION should be taken prematurely that cannot be undone. "Putting this distraction behind us" is IMHO the worst thing we could do at this moment.

Look what happened to Mike Bibby. https://sports.yahoo.com/mike-bibby...l-abuse-harassment-allegations-051740092.html
 
So, as I said earlier in the thread, you just want to ruin Luke's career without a moment's hesitation? You think she's believable; I think there are a plethora of questions starting with timing and going back to why no police report was filed.

I'm sorry, but false allegations do happen and NO ACTION should be taken prematurely that cannot be undone. "Putting this distraction behind us" is IMHO the worst thing we could do at this moment.

Look what happened to Mike Bibby. https://sports.yahoo.com/mike-bibby...l-abuse-harassment-allegations-051740092.html
Of course she is believable, but no where do I say I believe the allegations are true.
I would be an arrogant male arsehole if I just said she is an opportunist, or not understand why she would hesitate to come forward earlier considering her career in a male dominated field.
As a Kings fan this is a low point and at present I don't see a positive to the hiring.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
Of course she is believable, but no where do I say I believe the allegations are true.
I would be an arrogant male arsehole if I just said she is an opportunist, or not understand why she would hesitate to come forward earlier considering her career in a male dominated field.
As a Kings fan this is a low point and at present I don't see a positive to the hiring.
At this point is there a positive to his firing though?

"Hey hey! No more bad press!" is a nice sentiment but you're still the franchise that was apparently fine with hiring a sexual harasser (even if he didn't disclose the situation/ wasn't even aware there was a situation coming) or conversely the team who fired an innocent dude without due process because people on the internet were angry.

It's the definition of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.


Also as low points go, our newly hired coach being accused of sexual assault (but not criminally for some reason according to his accuser) doesn't even crack the top ten, which really says more about the abjectly miserable situations that have rained down upon our franchise more than anything.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Of course she is believable, but no where do I say I believe the allegations are true.
I would be an arrogant male arsehole if I just said she is an opportunist, or not understand why she would hesitate to come forward earlier considering her career in a male dominated field.
As a Kings fan this is a low point and at present I don't see a positive to the hiring.
But you have no problem immediately assuming Luke must be guilty and the Kings must get rid of him?

As a female, I am sometimes embarrassed by the lengths some of my gender go to for various reasons. False allegations rank right up there with telling a guy about a non-existent pregnancy. It happens way too often.

Giving Luke the benefit of the doubt and letting this whole scenario play out is not going to harm the franchise. Jumping to a premature conclusion, however, and taking action similar to what happened with Mike Bibby, on the other hand, could and most likely would. Nobody wants to work for an employer who assumes guilt without any investigation.
 
But you have no problem immediately assuming Luke must be guilty and the Kings must get rid of him?

As a female, I am sometimes embarrassed by the lengths some of my gender go to for various reasons. False allegations rank right up there with telling a guy about a non-existent pregnancy. It happens way too often.

Giving Luke the benefit of the doubt and letting this whole scenario play out is not going to harm the franchise. Jumping to a premature conclusion, however, and taking action similar to what happened with Mike Bibby, on the other hand, could and most likely would. Nobody wants to work for an employer who assumes guilt without any investigation.
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

VF, false reporting is very rare. Somewhere between 2-7% of reported cases are false reports. That means 93-98% of reporting are factual.

So the likelihood that she is lying is very low just based on statistical analysis. Women very very rarely go through lengths like this to make a false accusation. Now, the truth may be somewhere in the middle, but to dismiss this report because there is sometimes false reporting, is bad.

Also, Bibby's accuser wasn't false reporting, there just wasn't any evidence to support charges. He may have done what was claimed of him.
 
At this point is there a positive to his firing though?

"Hey hey! No more bad press!" is a nice sentiment but you're still the franchise that was apparently fine with hiring a sexual harasser (even if he didn't disclose the situation/ wasn't even aware there was a situation coming) or conversely the team who fired an innocent dude without due process because people on the internet were angry.

It's the definition of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.


Also as low points go, our newly hired coach being accused of sexual assault (but not criminally for some reason according to his accuser) doesn't even crack the top ten, which really says more about the abjectly miserable situations that have rained down upon our franchise more than anything.
I appreciate your reply. I was happy with the hire feeling that our young Kings were making positive strides finally and choosing a young up and coming coach that players like seemed a positive.
There has been so much in the way of sexual allegations lately and its impossible to prove much of it. I'm not interested in witch hunts, I simply at the moment do not see how this will ever be a positive for this organization and it does crack my top ten low points.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

VF, false reporting is very rare. Somewhere between 2-7% of reported cases are false reports. That means 93-98% of reporting are factual.

So the likelihood that she is lying is very low just based on statistical analysis. Women very very rarely go through lengths like this to make a false accusation. Now, the truth may be somewhere in the middle, but to dismiss this report because there is sometimes false reporting, is bad.

Also, Bibby's accuser wasn't false reporting, there just wasn't any evidence to support charges. He may have done what was claimed of him.
It is nigh impossible to prove a double negative.
 
But you have no problem immediately assuming Luke must be guilty and the Kings must get rid of him?

As a female, I am sometimes embarrassed by the lengths some of my gender go to for various reasons. False allegations rank right up there with telling a guy about a non-existent pregnancy. It happens way too often.

Giving Luke the benefit of the doubt and letting this whole scenario play out is not going to harm the franchise. Jumping to a premature conclusion, however, and taking action similar to what happened with Mike Bibby, on the other hand, could and most likely would. Nobody wants to work for an employer who assumes guilt without any investigation.
No where in my post do I say I believe her story or that Luke is guilty. I said her story is believable. Read my post again please.
You have a habit of jumping all over everything I say. I find that unwarranted. I'm out.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
http.www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

VF, false reporting is very rare. Somewhere between 2-7% of reported cases are false reports. That means 93-98% of reporting are factual.

So the likelihood that she is lying is very low just based on statistical analysis. Women very very rarely go through lengths like this to make a false accusation. Now, the truth may be somewhere in the middle, but to dismiss this report because there is sometimes false reporting, is bad.

Also, Bibby's accuser wasn't false reporting, there just wasn't any evidence to support charges. He may have done what was claimed of him.
False reports are not always identified as false reports.

"somewhere between'

"likelihood"

"based on statistical analysis"

"very rarely"

"somewhere in the middle"

"may have done"

All those qualifiers mean nothing unless you're assembling data for some kind of report.

I won't argue this further because NONE of us know any of the facts at this point in time. That's my main objection to people calling for Luke's dismissal so quickly. Let the investigation proceed. Just as you think "he might be guilty", I think "he might be innocent." In the interest of justice, I believe you take the course that DOESN'T ruin his life for no reason.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
I appreciate your reply. I was happy with the hire feeling that our young Kings were making positive strides finally and choosing a young up and coming coach that players like seemed a positive.
There has been so much in the way of sexual allegations lately and its impossible to prove much of it. I'm not interested in witch hunts, I simply at the moment do not see how this will ever be a positive for this organization and it does crack my top ten low points.
I mean, the chance of Walton not being a sexual predator and also helping build the team into a contender would be a positive but I certainly appreciate your opinion.

Like I said, the Kings are in an impossible situation and I honestly don't see what the Kings stand to lose by waiting just a little while longer while more and more information comes to light about Walton's situation before deciding whether or not to cut him lose to satiate the righteous (and rightful) anger of a certain portion of the fanbase.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
No where in my post do I say I believe her story or that Luke is guilty. I said her story is believable. Read my post again please.
You have a habit of jumping all over everything I say. I find that unwarranted. I'm out.

You were not jumped on. If you're speaking about the warning you were issued, you shouldn't have made the Trump comment (which I deleted). If you want to discuss this further, we'll do it via PM and not in the thread.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
No where in my post do I say I believe her story or that Luke is guilty. I said her story is believable. Read my post again please.
You have a habit of jumping all over everything I say. I find that unwarranted. I'm out.
I appreciate that this is a heated discussion (as any conversation about someone potentially being sexually violated should rightfully be) but rage quitting the second someone disagrees with you/ asks you to clarify your opinion does nothing to further the discourse.
 
I appreciate that this is a heated discussion (as any conversation about someone potentially being sexually violated should rightfully be) but rage quitting the second someone disagrees with you/ asks you to clarify your opinion does nothing to further the discourse.
Sorry mate. I always enjoy your post. I however don't have the time to defend my position or continue to clarify what I have or have not said or meant. I felt no heat with my replies, I only want good things for the Kings.
 
Massive amount of yikes in this thread. Playing amateur psychologist / lie detector or trying to find 'gotchas' in the complaint is not a good look. I imagine if this was your friend - or even Kayte Christensen - you folks might have a different approach. Kelli strikes me as credible, and it seems a far stretch to imagine she'd put so much on the line - both career and long-term friendship - to make something up. And if she did make it up, I'm pretty sure she would've told a much more damning or provocative story. The allegations are bad, but we've heard much worse.

THAT SAID, even for people who believe Luke is 100% innocent, I don't think there's any good reason to keep him. From a basketball perspective, we lose basically nothing - it's still the first round of the playoffs, the Sacramento HC job is still a desireable one, and there are still many qualified head coaches available.

From a PR + cultural perspective, it's a huge negative to keep him on. Even if he is 100% innocent, there is almost no chance that there will be conclusive evidence coming out to exonerate him, certainly not anytime soon, unless Kelli turns around and recants in the next few weeks. Do we really want this hanging over the team for the next year and on? Do we need yet another festering rot in this franchise? It's he-said-she-said, so questions WILL persist, whatever anyone thinks or argues.

FINALLY, from Luke's perspective, I think he is better off stepping back for now. For Luke's career, these allegations will ALWAYS be there. His reputation has been tarnished, whatever the Kings do next. If he weathers this storm, he will be fine. He's 39 years old, well liked around the league, and already considered a top coaching prospect. One season out of basketball won't change that. Whether the Kings keep him or go another direction won't change that.

The question is not whether these allegations are true or not, it is whether the Kings should tie themselves to Walton and make his drama our drama. The Kings can put forth a very diplomatic - and true - argument that Luke and the team will both be better off if Luke has the time to deal with this stuff privately and away from the media spotlight. He's lived an incredibly charmed life and will survive.

Find someone else and move on.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Massive amount of yikes in this thread. Playing amateur psychologist / lie detector or trying to find 'gotchas' in the complaint is not a good look. I imagine if this was your friend - or even Kayte Christensen - you folks might have a different approach. Kelli strikes me as credible, and it seems a far stretch to imagine she'd put so much on the line - both career and long-term friendship - to make something up. And if she did make it up, I'm pretty sure she would've told a much more damning or provocative story. The allegations are bad, but we've heard much worse.

THAT SAID, even for people who believe Luke is 100% innocent, I don't think there's any good reason to keep him. From a basketball perspective, we lose basically nothing - it's still the first round of the playoffs, the Sacramento HC job is still a desireable one, and there are still many qualified head coaches available.

From a PR + cultural perspective, it's a huge negative to keep him on. Even if he is 100% innocent, there is almost no chance that there will be conclusive evidence coming out to exonerate him, certainly not anytime soon, unless Kelli turns around and recants in the next few weeks. Do we really want this hanging over the team for the next year and on? Do we need yet another festering rot in this franchise? It's he-said-she-said, so questions WILL persist, whatever anyone thinks or argues.

FINALLY, from Luke's perspective, I think he is better off stepping back for now. For Luke's career, these allegations will ALWAYS be there. His reputation has been tarnished, whatever the Kings do next. If he weathers this storm, he will be fine. He's 39 years old, well liked around the league, and already considered a top coaching prospect. One season out of basketball won't change that. Whether the Kings keep him or go another direction won't change that.

The question is not whether these allegations are true or not, it is whether the Kings should tie themselves to Walton and make his drama our drama. The Kings can put forth a very diplomatic - and true - argument that Luke and the team will both be better off if Luke has the time to deal with this stuff privately and away from the media spotlight. He's lived an incredibly charmed life and will survive.

Find someone else and move on.
Try looking at the other POV. What if you know someone (male) who was falsely accused and you know all the horrors of living through that? Why wouldn't you advocate as strongly as possible to proceed cautiously? There are two sides. You're saying Luke will recover but you cannot know that for sure.
 
Massive amount of yikes in this thread. Playing amateur psychologist / lie detector or trying to find 'gotchas' in the complaint is not a good look. I imagine if this was your friend - or even Kayte Christensen - you folks might have a different approach. Kelli strikes me as credible, and it seems a far stretch to imagine she'd put so much on the line - both career and long-term friendship - to make something up. And if she did make it up, I'm pretty sure she would've told a much more damning or provocative story. The allegations are bad, but we've heard much worse.

THAT SAID, even for people who believe Luke is 100% innocent, I don't think there's any good reason to keep him. From a basketball perspective, we lose basically nothing - it's still the first round of the playoffs, the Sacramento HC job is still a desireable one, and there are still many qualified head coaches available.

From a PR + cultural perspective, it's a huge negative to keep him on. Even if he is 100% innocent, there is almost no chance that there will be conclusive evidence coming out to exonerate him, certainly not anytime soon, unless Kelli turns around and recants in the next few weeks. Do we really want this hanging over the team for the next year and on? Do we need yet another festering rot in this franchise? It's he-said-she-said, so questions WILL persist, whatever anyone thinks or argues.

FINALLY, from Luke's perspective, I think he is better off stepping back for now. For Luke's career, these allegations will ALWAYS be there. His reputation has been tarnished, whatever the Kings do next. If he weathers this storm, he will be fine. He's 39 years old, well liked around the league, and already considered a top coaching prospect. One season out of basketball won't change that. Whether the Kings keep him or go another direction won't change that.

The question is not whether these allegations are true or not, it is whether the Kings should tie themselves to Walton and make his drama our drama. The Kings can put forth a very diplomatic - and true - argument that Luke and the team will both be better off if Luke has the time to deal with this stuff privately and away from the media spotlight. He's lived an incredibly charmed life and will survive.

Find someone else and move on.
I realize I'm not the most popular guy around these parts to have approve of your post, but well said.
 
Try looking at the other POV. What if you know someone (male) who was falsely accused and you know all the horrors of living through that? Why wouldn't you advocate as strongly as possible to proceed cautiously? There are two sides. You're saying Luke will recover but you cannot know that for sure.
I do get it. When I say he'll be fine it's based on some pretty measurable things - he's Bill Walton's son, he's made millions in his career on top of his family money, he had a great run with the Warriors that made him a top prospect, he's still considered a great guy (Kings insider mentioned how Kerr was saying how he was one of the best guys in the league after the Lakers let him go). Objectively, he will be fine.

There is a different standard for elite executive level and high profile jobs. That's a fact of life, based both on having to win the trust of the public as an organization, as well as setting an example of what is right and wrong. If Luke was working a mid-level job needed it to support himself and his family, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, or at least say it's okay to give him time to figure it out. That's not the situation here, and the fact that this is lighting up Kings social media shows pretty clearly that this is about more than just Luke. Who, again, will be absolutely fine.
 
It's perfectly normal for cases like this to be settled, with confidential terms. I'm not holding my breath for definitive answers.
Luke’s attorney already put out a statement they are not going to pay a dime to this lady. They seem pretty confident that Luke didn’t do anything wrong.
 
Luke’s attorney already put out a statement they are not going to pay a dime to this lady. They seem pretty confident that Luke didn’t do anything wrong.
Yes - I think what happens next - and this is not a statement of my opinion on the veracity of the claim - is that Walton's attorney(s) absolutely destroy this woman. Unless there is a pattern here and others step forward this is completely swept under the rug by the start of summer league. The team has already made it's statement that they are standing by him for now.
 
Last edited:

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
I heard almost all of the press conference on the radio as it was taking place. Just going off the audio, I found her dialogue somewhat stilted and had a hard time believing that this was an authentic/believable accounting of any events that may have transpired. It seemed almost like she was reading a statement that was prepared for her, if that makes any sense, and not freely relating something she experienced. Just my impression based on numerous word choices/phrasing/sentence structure, etc., from the radio broadcast.

Watching the presser from the link a few posts up and having time sitting in front of the computer, a couple of thoughts/questions as it went along:
  • What does her being 6'1" when she was young, or playing against the lawyer's daughter's team have to do with anything? Is that supposed to add to credibility somehow? Seems like a strange way to lead off. Unless it was as a lead-in to the reason for the book she wrote? But that connection (if any) was never expressed or clarified. It just seemed like a strange intro to the presser.
  • As someone mentioned before, if she has known him since she was 12, why didn't she at least consult or document what happened with a lawyer who is a family friend? Even if she didn’t want to talk to someone, is there no private journal entry, or email to yourself documenting the event at the time, photographs of anything after it was over, or anything? In 2014 I think most people had the ability to somehow document effectively a severely life-altering event (as this appears to be for her).
  • When the lawyer or she discuss this, they say "as alleged in the complaint" or my "story". Is there a legal reason for this?
  • The whole thing with not being seen by the players in the lobby is just so odd. “He could not be around them” and “didn’t want to be seen in the lobby with the players”? I don’t understand that part of this at all. He’s an assistant coach. I think the players are allowed to see him in the hotel they are staying in. Can the players verify this – that should be easy to check, shouldn’t it? And why would the players hanging out in the lobby? Most of the time, it seems to me like players make a beeline to their rooms so they are away from the paparazzi, etc.
  • Watching the video, she is much more believable than she was just hearing it on the radio. What seemed to be stilted speech from reading on the radio comes across as nervousness and an uncomfortableness in the situation, especially as it appears they never planned to hold a press conference but the information was leaked and "forced their hand" to talk with the press. If the turn of events with the leak is true, she didn’t have much time to prepare herself for speaking publicly about what was allegedly a very difficult and frightening experience for her, even if it happened years ago.
  • The whole thing (no police involvement, admitting there is no evidence, discussing this half a decade later, and filing a lawsuit for financial considerations only) just smacks to me as a cash grab, whatever the actions that did take place at the time. People accuse other people of things they didn’t do all the time for various reasons (see https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nvictions-vacated-26-year-old-rape/588406002/, for instance), and it can ruin lives of people innocent of what they were accused of.
  • People that you think would never do such assaults also do some pretty strange things (see Cosby, and others) so I am definitely not making any kind of determination of guilt or innocence here by Walton.
  • We haven’t heard his side of the story at all other than a brief statement by his lawyer. I think both sides deserve to be heard before jumping to conclusions.
Whatever did or did not happen, a simple allegation without proof or evidence presented in court for consideration is NOT a reason to fire someone. You can’t support punishment based solely on an accusation that hasn’t been substantiated. I want to see how this all plays out before believing either of them. For both their sakes, I hope this didn't actually happen the way she describes it, as I would prefer someone be a liar than a victim of such behavior (if that makes any sense). If it did happen as she describes, he should be punished appropriately, including firing.
 
Massive amount of yikes in this thread. Playing amateur psychologist / lie detector or trying to find 'gotchas' in the complaint is not a good look. I imagine if this was your friend - or even Kayte Christensen - you folks might have a different approach. Kelli strikes me as credible, and it seems a far stretch to imagine she'd put so much on the line - both career and long-term friendship - to make something up. And if she did make it up, I'm pretty sure she would've told a much more damning or provocative story. The allegations are bad, but we've heard much worse.

THAT SAID, even for people who believe Luke is 100% innocent, I don't think there's any good reason to keep him. From a basketball perspective, we lose basically nothing - it's still the first round of the playoffs, the Sacramento HC job is still a desireable one, and there are still many qualified head coaches available.

From a PR + cultural perspective, it's a huge negative to keep him on. Even if he is 100% innocent, there is almost no chance that there will be conclusive evidence coming out to exonerate him, certainly not anytime soon, unless Kelli turns around and recants in the next few weeks. Do we really want this hanging over the team for the next year and on? Do we need yet another festering rot in this franchise? It's he-said-she-said, so questions WILL persist, whatever anyone thinks or argues.

FINALLY, from Luke's perspective, I think he is better off stepping back for now. For Luke's career, these allegations will ALWAYS be there. His reputation has been tarnished, whatever the Kings do next. If he weathers this storm, he will be fine. He's 39 years old, well liked around the league, and already considered a top coaching prospect. One season out of basketball won't change that. Whether the Kings keep him or go another direction won't change that.

The question is not whether these allegations are true or not, it is whether the Kings should tie themselves to Walton and make his drama our drama. The Kings can put forth a very diplomatic - and true - argument that Luke and the team will both be better off if Luke has the time to deal with this stuff privately and away from the media spotlight. He's lived an incredibly charmed life and will survive.

Find someone else and move on.
Let’s not pretend that there isn’t something to be gained. There’s money. As for her career, there something to be said about where that’s at as well but I don’t want to apply motives to her..but money to be gained is a fact, it’s simply all there is to be gained five years after this allegedly occurred.

You bemoan amateur psychologists but i would like to know what method you used to determine that she is credible. What builds credibility? Having a story? I don’t know how that can be concluded with no evidence unless you are using some psycho analysis yourself. Does that mean Luke lacks credibility? And why?

The only thing causing massive amount of yikes in this thread is the amount of people who think it really should be this easy to ruin somebody. That innocence doesn’t matter or that an exoneration rests in the hands of the accuser, evidence be damned. He said-she said automatically means he’s screwed?

I could take or leave Walton as a coach. I would actually call for his removal if he knew this lawsuit was coming but didn’t say anything , but this is a little bigger than that. This movement of point and destroy and never mind asking questions later that has been going on over the last couple of years needs to end. While I’m sympathetic to why reports aren’t made, that IMO doesn’t excuse reports not being made and certainly shouldn’t empower years later baseless accusations ruining lives. There has to be some responsibility not just to oneself but for society as a whole. Creating this climate fails in the worst and most frightening way.

Thing is, we won’t know anything. There will likely be no evidence for or against Luke Walton. The Kings have likely made the judgement that THEY believe Luke Walton. He “seems credible” to them. That should carry every bit of the weight of her credibility. You don’t fire somebody you reasons that you believe to be false. That’s appears to be their stand.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
I do get it. When I say he'll be fine it's based on some pretty measurable things - he's Bill Walton's son, he's made millions in his career on top of his family money, he had a great run with the Warriors that made him a top prospect, he's still considered a great guy (Kings insider mentioned how Kerr was saying how he was one of the best guys in the league after the Lakers let him go). Objectively, he will be fine.

There is a different standard for elite executive level and high profile jobs. That's a fact of life, based both on having to win the trust of the public as an organization, as well as setting an example of what is right and wrong. If Luke was working a mid-level job needed it to support himself and his family, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, or at least say it's okay to give him time to figure it out. That's not the situation here, and the fact that this is lighting up Kings social media shows pretty clearly that this is about more than just Luke. Who, again, will be absolutely fine.
Wait, so just because he is a public figure it is OK to deprive him of his profession and reputation over what could be a completely made-up allegation? REALLY? I hope an honest person falsely accused never has someone with this attitude on their jury. "You've got some savings and a famous last name - take the fall and you'll be fine." Uh, no.
 
Massive amount of yikes in this thread. Playing amateur psychologist / lie detector or trying to find 'gotchas' in the complaint is not a good look. I imagine if this was your friend - or even Kayte Christensen - you folks might have a different approach. Kelli strikes me as credible, and it seems a far stretch to imagine she'd put so much on the line - both career and long-term friendship - to make something up. And if she did make it up, I'm pretty sure she would've told a much more damning or provocative story. The allegations are bad, but we've heard much worse.

THAT SAID, even for people who believe Luke is 100% innocent, I don't think there's any good reason to keep him. From a basketball perspective, we lose basically nothing - it's still the first round of the playoffs, the Sacramento HC job is still a desireable one, and there are still many qualified head coaches available.

From a PR + cultural perspective, it's a huge negative to keep him on. Even if he is 100% innocent, there is almost no chance that there will be conclusive evidence coming out to exonerate him, certainly not anytime soon, unless Kelli turns around and recants in the next few weeks. Do we really want this hanging over the team for the next year and on? Do we need yet another festering rot in this franchise? It's he-said-she-said, so questions WILL persist, whatever anyone thinks or argues.

FINALLY, from Luke's perspective, I think he is better off stepping back for now. For Luke's career, these allegations will ALWAYS be there. His reputation has been tarnished, whatever the Kings do next. If he weathers this storm, he will be fine. He's 39 years old, well liked around the league, and already considered a top coaching prospect. One season out of basketball won't change that. Whether the Kings keep him or go another direction won't change that.

The question is not whether these allegations are true or not, it is whether the Kings should tie themselves to Walton and make his drama our drama. The Kings can put forth a very diplomatic - and true - argument that Luke and the team will both be better off if Luke has the time to deal with this stuff privately and away from the media spotlight. He's lived an incredibly charmed life and will survive.

Find someone else and move on.
You actually have to have a good reason to fire someone. Allegations in a civil suit aren't enough (nor should they be). Imagine if someone brought a civil suit against you the same way & your boss decided to fire you as a result. I imagine you would be suing your boss rather quickly.

There is no path forthe Kings where they come out unscathed. IMO, the one that hurts them the least is to allow due process to take place.
 
  • When the lawyer or she discuss this, they say "as alleged in the complaint" or my "story". Is there a legal reason for this?
According to my internet law degree, it's because the statement can't be used against her. If her lawyer makes the statement for her or she refers to the complaint then it's not coming directly from her mouth. This is why if you are arrested never say anything, let your attorney do the talking.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
According to my internet law degree, it's because the statement can't be used against her. If her lawyer makes the statement for her or she refers to the complaint then it's not coming directly from her mouth. This is why if you are arrested never say anything, let your attorney do the talking.
Seems reasonable, but then she goes on to describe in some detail what he allegedly did without using such qualifiers. I just found it interesting. I have no reason to doubt your answer.
 
I heard almost all of the press conference on the radio as it was taking place. Just going off the audio, I found her dialogue somewhat stilted and had a hard time believing that this was an authentic/believable accounting of any events that may have transpired. It seemed almost like she was reading a statement that was prepared for her, if that makes any sense, and not freely relating something she experienced. Just my impression based on numerous word choices/phrasing/sentence structure, etc., from the radio broadcast.

Watching the presser from the link a few posts up and having time sitting in front of the computer, a couple of thoughts/questions as it went along:
  • What does her being 6'1" when she was young, or playing against the lawyer's daughter's team have to do with anything? Is that supposed to add to credibility somehow? Seems like a strange way to lead off. Unless it was as a lead-in to the reason for the book she wrote? But that connection (if any) was never expressed or clarified. It just seemed like a strange intro to the presser.
  • As someone mentioned before, if she has known him since she was 12, why didn't she at least consult or document what happened with a lawyer who is a family friend? Even if she didn’t want to talk to someone, is there no private journal entry, or email to yourself documenting the event at the time, photographs of anything after it was over, or anything? In 2014 I think most people had the ability to somehow document effectively a severely life-altering event (as this appears to be for her).
  • When the lawyer or she discuss this, they say "as alleged in the complaint" or my "story". Is there a legal reason for this?
  • The whole thing with not being seen by the players in the lobby is just so odd. “He could not be around them” and “didn’t want to be seen in the lobby with the players”? I don’t understand that part of this at all. He’s an assistant coach. I think the players are allowed to see him in the hotel they are staying in. Can the players verify this – that should be easy to check, shouldn’t it? And why would the players hanging out in the lobby? Most of the time, it seems to me like players make a beeline to their rooms so they are away from the paparazzi, etc.
  • Watching the video, she is much more believable than she was just hearing it on the radio. What seemed to be stilted speech from reading on the radio comes across as nervousness and an uncomfortableness in the situation, especially as it appears they never planned to hold a press conference but the information was leaked and "forced their hand" to talk with the press. If the turn of events with the leak is true, she didn’t have much time to prepare herself for speaking publicly about what was allegedly a very difficult and frightening experience for her, even if it happened years ago.
  • The whole thing (no police involvement, admitting there is no evidence, discussing this half a decade later, and filing a lawsuit for financial considerations only) just smacks to me as a cash grab, whatever the actions that did take place at the time. People accuse other people of things they didn’t do all the time for various reasons (see https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nvictions-vacated-26-year-old-rape/588406002/, for instance), and it can ruin lives of people innocent of what they were accused of.
  • People that you think would never do such assaults also do some pretty strange things (see Cosby, and others) so I am definitely not making any kind of determination of guilt or innocence here by Walton.
  • We haven’t heard his side of the story at all other than a brief statement by his lawyer. I think both sides deserve to be heard before jumping to conclusions.
Whatever did or did not happen, a simple allegation without proof or evidence presented in court for consideration is NOT a reason to fire someone. You can’t support punishment based solely on an accusation that hasn’t been substantiated. I want to see how this all plays out before believing either of them. For both their sakes, I hope this didn't actually happen the way she describes it, as I would prefer someone be a liar than a victim of such behavior (if that makes any sense). If it did happen as she describes, he should be punished appropriately, including firing.
I'm not going to take issue with any of your analysis, other than to say that these questions are natural in response to this situation, AND a reason why Walton should go. Which again, isn't about guilty or innocent, it's about not wanting to go into our brightest seasons in over a decade with this hanging over the franchise.

To others points - whether the allegations are a 'valid' reason to terminate him depends on the terms of his contract and the CBA. California is at-will. The only issue here is how much of that contract Vivek would be on the hook for if we terminated him, which frankly is Vivek's issue and not ours.

And yes, Luke's wealth and stature is reason to not be worried about letting him go. This is less about bias against someone with Luke's privileged background, but more about awareness of protecting people who aren't so well off. If he was working at McDonald's or as an accountant at a small company - a position where losing his job could have catastrophic impacts on his life - I would think differently. Which is because such a person would have a ton at stake, making the decision to keep them or not a whole lot more significant. There is very little on the line for Luke here, all things considered. His reputation is tarnished to matter what, and he is tremendously wealthy and his life will be fine, no matter what.

There is a TON on the line for this franchise. How many years have we been bogged down by needless drama and self-inflicted wounds? Other than avoiding dead money on the books for Walton's salary, there is almost no upside to keeping him when other qualified candidates are available.

I understand defending Luke. I do. But if we could release Walton tonight and sign Ettore Messina (or a coach of similar pedigree) tomorrow, would anyone really have issues with that?