Allegations against Luke Walton (split from new coach thread)

Watching all this back and forth is getting old.

1.) We have no way of knowing for sure what happened.

2.) Employers can't go firing people because someone accused them of something.

3.) This sucks


That is literally the extent of it right now.


Most likely because of the nature of this type of suit, nothing is going to happen and we never really know what happened. I really hope that is not the case and we get some form of resolution.
 
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.
Why would any coach find the kings job desirable knowing that they will fire you on the spot the moment you are accused of some wrong doing, whether it’s true or not, without even investigating it?
 
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.
what the studies don’t separate is how many of those cases have monetary implications. Of course most of the allegations are true because the victim wants the perp arrested and out of the streets. The few false reports I’m assuming were to get something else from the defendant like money or some type of revenge. With all stats, they can be skewed because not all factors are taken into consideration. Like what percentage of false allegation were against celebrities/rich people. Or false allegations % in civil suits as opposed to criminal cases.
 
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?
I would have a problem with it....in response to your last sentence. And I didn’t want Joerger fired and am still bitter about it but just letting Walton go and hiring Messina? The guy may be innocent.
 
Why would any coach find the kings job desirable knowing that they will fire you on the spot the moment you are accused of some wrong doing, whether it’s true or not, without even investigating it?
This is one of the key points. If the Kings were to fire Walton right now, it would make them very unattractive to the rest of the league. Part of a working relationship is trust. If you drop someone the moment they are accused of something, no one will ever trust you.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
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?
So, just to get this straight - it's potentially OK with you to falsely accuse someone of a crime and then to immediately fire them as long as they have a little money in the bank. But for those not so well off you would actually prefer justice to prevail.

Seriously, WTF?

NONE of what I said is good justification for terminating Walton. NONE of it.

There is more at stake with this franchise if we go around firing coaches who (potentially) have done nothing wrong, and at this point have definitively denied any wrongdoing, than if we let the process play out and actually, you know, try to get some kind of legal resolution.
 
Hopefully more information is revealed in the next couple weeks that can clear this up. I have to assume she told somebody about this right after it happened. If he/she exists, will they come forward? Did Luke/Kelli have a previous romantic encounter? What happened between "we were heading up to his room" and "all of a sudden he was on top of me" Why don't they want him in jail if he assaulted her?

The "good seein' ya" he allegedly said afterwards is either pure evil or someone who had an entirely different take on what transpired.
 
So, just to get this straight - it's potentially OK with you to falsely accuse someone of a crime and then to immediately fire them as long as they have a little money in the bank. But for those not so well off you would actually prefer justice to prevail.

Seriously, WTF?

NONE of what I said is good justification for terminating Walton. NONE of it.

There is more at stake with this franchise if we go around firing coaches who (potentially) have done nothing wrong, and at this point have definitively denied any wrongdoing, than if we let the process play out and actually, you know, try to get some kind of legal resolution.
Yea, right. Whatever happened to justice being blind? It’s okay to fire someone based on an allegation alone if they’re rich, but not okay if they’re poor?

Folks, especially on STR, are trying to out do other posters as the moral consciousness of the community. It’s like everyone is trying so hard to be on the perceived right side of current history (me too) that they’re willing to potentially violate an innocent person’s rights to do so.

I just don’t get it.
 
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.
This is complete BS. There’s no way to know with any accuracy at all. A vast majority of these types of accusations are unprovable and boil down to a he said, she said situation. That being the case, it’s impossible to know if the accusation is false unless one of the parties involved eventually comes clean and admits it — which is unlikely to happen in many cases w/o direct and undeniable proof. So that would mean that statistics would have to be based upon a very small sample size thus unreliable.

Furthermore, the document you cite mentions 63% of cases go unreported to police. How can they possibly know the percentages when it’s not reported at all? Is it 63% of cases they discovered via other means that they then found weren’t reported to police? If so, the number obviously isn’t including totally unreported cases which means that number means absolutely nothing.

In summary, these numbers are totally misleading at not remotely close to being accurate due to a myriad of unknowns.
 
Last edited:
That report is based on data ranging from 7 to 25 years old. A lot has changed since that time. I did appreciate reading it as I need to remember to differentiate between "false" and "baseless" reporting.

Bottom line for me is that we need to tread very softly.
Also only goes to 2010 and is basing numbers on a ton of unknowns and missing info. It’s simply not close to being accurate or reliable. Anybody could make up numbers and there’d be no way to disprove them.
 
He’s got millions in the bank, it won’t matter to him if we fire him.
It’s fine if we fire him, if he’s innocent he’ll find another coaching job
We just barely hired him, it’s not a big deal if we fire him right now since we aren’t attached.
We need to fire him now, if we keep him, the kings will be subject to being in headlines and discussions until it plays out.

These are actual reasons that are getting rec’d at the other kings site. Smh. Such stark contrast. They have an article promoting firing him before getting any actual proof/evidence/conviction. It’s only been a few days since the news even broke. They couldn’t even wait a week, let alone wait til it proves true, to drop the “fire Walton” article?

Can someone please give me other kings sites, besides this one, to follow for news and updates about the kings? I’m getting tired of BS nation.
 
Last edited:
He’s got millions in the bank, it won’t matter to him if we fire him.
It’s fine if we fire him, if he’s innocent he’ll find another coaching job
We just barely hired him, it’s not a big deal the fire him right now since we aren’t attached.
We need to fire him now, if we keep him, the kings will be subject to being in headlines and discussions until it plays out.

These are actual reasons that are getting rec’d at the other kings site. Smh. Such stark contrast. They have an article promoting firing him before getting any actual proof/evidence/conviction. It’s only been a few days since the news even broke. They couldn’t even wait a week, let alone wait til it proves true, to drop the “fire Walton” article?

Can someone please give me other kings sites, besides this one, to follow for news and updates about the kings? I’m getting tired of BS nation.
I got worried for a moment, steelevt. I thought the first 4 lines were from you ... until I got to the next paragraph (reading is fundamental!).

IMO any person that buys into that crap would feel much differently if they were on the other end of it and lost their job or livelihood prior to being able to defend themselves.
 
AHEM. Reuben Foster's ex-girlfriend testifies she lied about domestic abuse

Here’s a recent case that shows that false allegations can and do happen. W/O Elissa Ennis coming clean, this would have been just another case where the victim was largely believed. Even then, there are many that won’t know or remember the outcome and will forever dislike Reuben Foster because of the initial news.
I think Reuben ended up actually committing domestic abuse after that and was released by the Niners.
 
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.
With the stats you just posted does those stats only include cases where the victim did not file a report to the police and went to sue only? You can’t add statistics without context.
 
The Luke Walton situation isn’t going away anytime soon. Three days after the sexual assault accusations levied against the new Sacramento Kings coach by former television reporter Kelli Tennant were first revealed, the NBA and the Kings are poised to announce on Thursday that they have commenced a joint investigation into the allegations. And judging by the credentials of the attorneys involved, it’s the strongest sign yet that the pursuit of the truth is seen as a major priority for both parties.

42 mins ago – via The Athletic
The Kings have hired Sue Ann Van Dermyden, the founding partner of the Sacramento law firm, Van Dermyden Maddux, who has extensive experience with employment law and decades of experience in conducting investigations. They also hired Jennifer Doughty, a veteran investigator and senior associate attorney at Van Dermyden Maddux.
Meanwhile, the NBA has assigned one of its top attorneys to assist in the investigation. Elizabeth Maringer, who has been the league’s senior vice president and assistant general counsel of the Integrity and Investigations department for nearly four years, will lead the way for the league. Prior to her NBA duties, Maringer served 12 years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (three as Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division).

42 mins ago – via The Athletic
So, what does this mean when it comes to the question of Walton’s future? It means that the Kings, who gave him a four-year deal just three days after he mutually parted ways with the Lakers on April 12, will continue to take the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach with Walton while asking tough questions along the way.

42 mins ago – via The Athletic


Good Move kings - I Like it!! Lets get to the truth
 
The Luke Walton situation isn’t going away anytime soon. Three days after the sexual assault accusations levied against the new Sacramento Kings coach by former television reporter Kelli Tennant were first revealed, the NBA and the Kings are poised to announce on Thursday that they have commenced a joint investigation into the allegations. And judging by the credentials of the attorneys involved, it’s the strongest sign yet that the pursuit of the truth is seen as a major priority for both parties.

42 mins ago – via The Athletic
The Kings have hired Sue Ann Van Dermyden, the founding partner of the Sacramento law firm, Van Dermyden Maddux, who has extensive experience with employment law and decades of experience in conducting investigations. They also hired Jennifer Doughty, a veteran investigator and senior associate attorney at Van Dermyden Maddux.
Meanwhile, the NBA has assigned one of its top attorneys to assist in the investigation. Elizabeth Maringer, who has been the league’s senior vice president and assistant general counsel of the Integrity and Investigations department for nearly four years, will lead the way for the league. Prior to her NBA duties, Maringer served 12 years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (three as Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division).

42 mins ago – via The Athletic
So, what does this mean when it comes to the question of Walton’s future? It means that the Kings, who gave him a four-year deal just three days after he mutually parted ways with the Lakers on April 12, will continue to take the innocent-until-proven-guilty approach with Walton while asking tough questions along the way.

42 mins ago – via The Athletic


Good Move kings - I Like it!! Lets get to the truth
I wonder what the time frame for this investigation will be. Hopefully, we will get a resolution, either way, before free agency starts on July 1st.

I'm sure the league will interview the Warriors players and their staff and ask the hotel for any video they may have.

Does anyone know a time frame for a civil lawsuit to get to court? I would think that the faster the resolution, the better for all involved.
 
My gut says this is anything but a fact finding mission and they are going full court press to clear him. It's a he said she said thing and not a criminal matter and they just want to load up with "experts" to give his version the most weight and make this go away fast. Unless there is a history and other women come forward this pretty much strictly comes down to PR management.
 
My gut says this is anything but a fact finding mission and they are going full court press to clear him. It's a he said she said thing and not a criminal matter and they just want to load up with "experts" to give his version the most weight and make this go away fast. Unless there is a history and other women come forward this pretty much strictly comes down to PR management.
I disagree. I think the Kings and the league both have too much at stake to force an outcome that could blow up in their faces if additional victims come forward. What the accuser alleges suggests to me that, if true, there are other victims out there. If even one comes forward and is credible, that’s the corroborating evidence.
 
Everyone who keeps referencing the article I posted from statistics to the DOJ that is saying those stats don't apply for XYZ reason are missing the point. It's uncommon to have false allegations made, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Too many people here jumped to defend Luke and admonish the possible victim because of these cherry picked cases like Ruben Foster.

I never said it doesn't happen. As I stated before we don't know what happened, the entire thing is unfortunate, but dismissing her claims is irresponsible and is the heart of the reason most women don't come forward.
 
I disagree. I think the Kings and the league both have too much at stake to force an outcome that could blow up in their faces if additional victims come forward. What the accuser alleges suggests to me that, if true, there are other victims out there. If even one comes forward and is credible, that’s the corroborating evidence.
Even if witnesses emerge and say that Kelli confided in them about this when it happened, that moves it out of straight “he said - she said” territory and makes it important to sever ties with Luke. Hope mods permit my comment
 
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.

The reality for cases like this is that there is rarely any evidence other than the words of the victim and those that she may have told, which is not really "Evidence". No one really goes meet someone with the cameras rolling thinking the might be assaulted and Walton's lawyer is riding on that fact. This is not to say Luke is guilty.

Whether Luke did or didn't do what he was accused of, we'll most likely never know. The only way Luke loses in court is if more women comes out to accuse him of similar behavior. Anything short of that, Walton will get off legally.

How much of a hit will his reputation take? Time will tell. But people will always remember this case, just like many other sexual assault cases with athletes and celebs.
 
Luke’s attorney already put out a statement they are not going to pay a dime to this lady.
Portraying their client as a wronged innocent is exactly what lawyers get paid to do, I'm not sure what you expected him to say. Most cases start out with combative statements, then 97% settle without going to trial. Settlement needn't include an admission of wrongdoing or any disclosure of terms, and occasionally innocent parties will pay a little to make an annoying lawsuit go away, so learning that litigation's been settled doesn't really tell you anything. I mention this so that people won't get their hearts set on a trial that only has a 3% chance of happening.
 
I disagree. I think the Kings and the league both have too much at stake to force an outcome that could blow up in their faces if additional victims come forward. What the accuser alleges suggests to me that, if true, there are other victims out there. If even one comes forward and is credible, that’s the corroborating evidence.
Kobe didn’t have any and people believed the accuser in that case. So not having another accuser doesn’t mean anything.
 
Everyone who keeps referencing the article I posted from statistics to the DOJ that is saying those stats don't apply for XYZ reason are missing the point. It's uncommon to have false allegations made, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Too many people here jumped to defend Luke and admonish the possible victim because of these cherry picked cases like Ruben Foster.

I never said it doesn't happen. As I stated before we don't know what happened, the entire thing is unfortunate, but dismissing her claims is irresponsible and is the heart of the reason most women don't come forward.
It's also irresponsible to write an article like STR did saying Luke Walton needs to be fired right now because of allegations. It reminded me of the one time I was on a jury and when it came down to deliberations this one lady said something to the effect of "Well he's here so he must be guilty right?".

The truth is normally somewhere in the middle of people's stories. She claims that as soon as she got to the room, he pinned her down to the bed and kissed and fondled while not letting her up for a period of time while she repeatedly kept telling him to get off of her. She said he just laughed at her pleas for him to stop. Then she gets free and heads toward the door and he grabs her from behind and does a similar type move while laughing at her pleas to let her go. Lets be honest here, it's not impossible for a guy to do something like this but it's not how most guys are and the least believable part is him laughing the entire time she's pleading for him to let her go. That's pretty rare behavior right there.

A more realistic situation would be she comes into his hotel room and he makes a move by grabbing her and kissing her. She says something like "No Luke, I'm just here to give you the book" but maybe not in a stern enough way. Maybe a way that seemed a little more flirtatious or non serious? So she hands him the book, they talk for a minute and on her way out he tries to make another move on her and she tells him to stop and he lets her go.

The first scenario just seems weird to me with the laughing and all that. It almost reeks of the stories that came out in the last couple years of people shouting their allegiance to Trump and MAGA before assaulting people. It's just not generally how people act. I have a feeling that Luke just made a bit of an aggressive move at her, which is what a lot of women like, and was either confused at first or just dumb and didn't pick up on the signals....which is why he went for the second move. It's just really hard for me to believe that she's pleading with him over and over and over and he's just bellowing with laughter and continuing to assault her. I'm not saying that's an impossible situation, I'm just saying it's improbable. I'm sure there are a lot of truths to this story but I feel like there is a lot of embellishment as well. Especially since it's normal human behavior to embellish stories the longer time passes. It could be a completely truthful situation or it could be a normal unwanted pass by a man that most girls get at some point in their lives. The difference is that this man has money that she can extract because of it.