Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (5 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

For the "death penalty" and "shut down the athletic program" folks....why do you draw the line at athletics? Trying to understand why the line's being drawn there. TIA

As opposed to closing the school? I don't know if I would go that far, although I wouldn't be surprised if the civil suits that are coming massively bankrupt the university. The damages are going to massive. I've been trying to figure out how I would deal with the civil case if I was an attorney and I don't know if I could settle a great claim for less than 8 figures or more. What's going to be interesting is the outlying claims - people that claim they were victims too but didn't come forward in the criminal case, or other types of "ancillary" claims - does the university fight them or try to settle with them too as soon as possible? I think no matter what PSU is going to be a very different type of school in a few years.

Why not? For me, this ends with removing all the individuals actually responsible for the acts. It's clear that stopping there isn't enough for a lot of folks, so I'm trying to understand how they are determining where to stop.

I'm not that heavily invested to really care that much; was just offering my opinion for the most part. Let's revise my remakrs to say that if they kill the program I'm ok with it. Won't really shed a tear either way though.

And if they simply remove all those involved, are you still "ok" with it?

Only because I'm not involved in any way to care enough. I lean more towards killing the football program though than not. The university engaged in a cover up to protect the football program and what it represented (money mostly). They should lose that as punishment.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Nike is stripping Joe Paterno's name from its child care center, per @darrenrovell:

 

[The Commish]

For the "death penalty" and "shut down the athletic program" folks....why do you draw the line at athletics? Trying to understand why the line's being drawn there. TIA

I haven't heard too many people wanting to shut down the whole athletic program. I would say shut down the football program because the evidence seems to suggest that this coverup occurred in an attempt to protect the reputation of the football program. Football was given priority over the safety and well-being of the boys that were being abused by Sandusky. That's why I think the football program should be given the death penalty.

And you don't believe that once this got outside the athletic department, those administrators were just looking at protecting the football program and not the PSU name in general?

Perhaps to a much lesser degree, but I think this was primarily and overwhelmingly about protecting the cash cow.

You give them a lot more credit than I do then.

Do you think Spanier's and Shultz's actions would've been different if instead of Sandusky being accused it was a Physics professor or groundskeeper?

I get the importance of it being in the athletic department. I do. That's not where I'm going. Folks want to go scorched earth on a whole department/program even though it wasn't program wide. That's guilty by association from my POV. I don't even have a problem with that theory/approach. What I'm wondering is if we do use the "guilty by association" route, why not take it all the way?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

This is what Paterno passed off as a rumor he might have heard but didn't remember

The first record of Penn State administrators being aware of Sandusky's actions came in May 1998 when the mother of a Second Mile participant reported Sandusky had bear-hugged her son in a Penn State shower.

According to the Freeh report, Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, director of finance Gary Schultz and head coach Joe Paterno were all aware of that investigation. Until now, it was unclear whether or not Paterno knew of the 1998 incident. His family has denied it, and Paterno's testimony before the grand jury indicated he didn't, but the Freeh report quotes an internal email from Curly to Schultz in which he asks if there's anything new with the investigation because "Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

link

"The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno's," the report said.

link

There's also an email eight days earlier from Curley to Shultz and Spanier called "Paterno" that says "I have touched base with the coach." So at the very least Paterno was apparently told about the 1998 incident and then a week later asked for some sort of update.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

For the "death penalty" and "shut down the athletic program" folks....why do you draw the line at athletics? Trying to understand why the line's being drawn there. TIA

I haven't heard too many people wanting to shut down the whole athletic program. I would say shut down the football program because the evidence seems to suggest that this coverup occurred in an attempt to protect the reputation of the football program. Football was given priority over the safety and well-being of the boys that were being abused by Sandusky. That's why I think the football program should be given the death penalty.

And you don't believe that once this got outside the athletic department, those administrators were just looking at protecting the football program and not the PSU name in general?

Perhaps to a much lesser degree, but I think this was primarily and overwhelmingly about protecting the cash cow.

You give them a lot more credit than I do then.

Do you think Spanier's and Shultz's actions would've been different if instead of Sandusky being accused it was a Physics professor or groundskeeper?

I get the importance of it being in the athletic department. I do. That's not where I'm going. Folks want to go scorched earth on a whole department/program even though it wasn't program wide. That's guilty by association from my POV. I don't even have a problem with that theory/approach. What I'm wondering is if we do use the "guilty by association" route, why not take it all the way?

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

 

[TexanFan02]

The first record of Penn State administrators being aware of Sandusky's actions came in May 1998 when the mother of a Second Mile participant reported Sandusky had bear-hugged her son in a Penn State shower.

According to the Freeh report, Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, director of finance Gary Schultz and head coach Joe Paterno were all aware of that investigation. Until now, it was unclear whether or not Paterno knew of the 1998 incident. His family has denied it, and Paterno's testimony before the grand jury indicated he didn't, but the Freeh report quotes an internal email from Curly to Schultz in which he asks if there's anything new with the investigation because "Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

link

Right. Paterno was concerned. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing. I don't know why you guys think this is some kind of smoking gun.

He lied to the grand jury about it.

Link?

link

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post. Instead, Paterno said the only allegation he knew of against Sandusky was made by assistant coach Mike McQueary in 2001.

So he lied in an interview, but not to the Grand Jury. Got it.

 

[The Commish]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Neither do I, but I'm guessing the "lack of institutional control," cop out they always use could be used here.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The first record of Penn State administrators being aware of Sandusky's actions came in May 1998 when the mother of a Second Mile participant reported Sandusky had bear-hugged her son in a Penn State shower.

According to the Freeh report, Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, director of finance Gary Schultz and head coach Joe Paterno were all aware of that investigation. Until now, it was unclear whether or not Paterno knew of the 1998 incident. His family has denied it, and Paterno's testimony before the grand jury indicated he didn't, but the Freeh report quotes an internal email from Curly to Schultz in which he asks if there's anything new with the investigation because "Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

link

Right. Paterno was concerned. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing. I don't know why you guys think this is some kind of smoking gun.

He lied to the grand jury about it.

Link?

link

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post. Instead, Paterno said the only allegation he knew of against Sandusky was made by assistant coach Mike McQueary in 2001.

So he lied in an interview, but not to the Grand Jury. Got it.

Wow.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

 

[Rayderr]

For the "death penalty" and "shut down the athletic program" folks....why do you draw the line at athletics? Trying to understand why the line's being drawn there. TIA

I haven't heard too many people wanting to shut down the whole athletic program. I would say shut down the football program because the evidence seems to suggest that this coverup occurred in an attempt to protect the reputation of the football program. Football was given priority over the safety and well-being of the boys that were being abused by Sandusky. That's why I think the football program should be given the death penalty.

And you don't believe that once this got outside the athletic department, those administrators were just looking at protecting the football program and not the PSU name in general?

Perhaps to a much lesser degree, but I think this was primarily and overwhelmingly about protecting the cash cow.

You give them a lot more credit than I do then.

Do you think Spanier's and Shultz's actions would've been different if instead of Sandusky being accused it was a Physics professor or groundskeeper?

I get the importance of it being in the athletic department. I do. That's not where I'm going. Folks want to go scorched earth on a whole department/program even though it wasn't program wide. That's guilty by association from my POV. I don't even have a problem with that theory/approach. What I'm wondering is if we do use the "guilty by association" route, why not take it all the way?

If a company cheats on their taxes, they still get punished even if it was just one accountant who fudged the books. They still punished if the person(s) responsible has left the company. Punishing that company does not mean everyone there is guilty. And the punishment is likely to have a negative effect on people who have nothing to do with it, from stockholders to employees who might get laid off because of the financial penalty. How is this any different?

 

[David Yudkin]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

I believe it was discussed closer to the beginning of the thread that there were other government agencies that could use the information obtained in this case and dramatically cut funding to PSU. I don't remember what agencies those were, but they would have to launch their own investigation and could use what was already uncovered. I do not remember if they could levy other sanctions (IIRC they couldn't), but they could strip millions of dollars in government funding.

 

[TexanFan02]

The first record of Penn State administrators being aware of Sandusky's actions came in May 1998 when the mother of a Second Mile participant reported Sandusky had bear-hugged her son in a Penn State shower.

According to the Freeh report, Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, director of finance Gary Schultz and head coach Joe Paterno were all aware of that investigation. Until now, it was unclear whether or not Paterno knew of the 1998 incident. His family has denied it, and Paterno's testimony before the grand jury indicated he didn't, but the Freeh report quotes an internal email from Curly to Schultz in which he asks if there's anything new with the investigation because "Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

link

Right. Paterno was concerned. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing. I don't know why you guys think this is some kind of smoking gun.

He lied to the grand jury about it.

Link?

link

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post. Instead, Paterno said the only allegation he knew of against Sandusky was made by assistant coach Mike McQueary in 2001.

So he lied in an interview, but not to the Grand Jury. Got it.

Wow.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

Read the question again. He told the truth.

 

[Limp Ditka]

The first record of Penn State administrators being aware of Sandusky's actions came in May 1998 when the mother of a Second Mile participant reported Sandusky had bear-hugged her son in a Penn State shower.

According to the Freeh report, Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, director of finance Gary Schultz and head coach Joe Paterno were all aware of that investigation. Until now, it was unclear whether or not Paterno knew of the 1998 incident. His family has denied it, and Paterno's testimony before the grand jury indicated he didn't, but the Freeh report quotes an internal email from Curly to Schultz in which he asks if there's anything new with the investigation because "Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

link

Right. Paterno was concerned. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing. I don't know why you guys think this is some kind of smoking gun.

He lied to the grand jury about it.

Link?

link

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post. Instead, Paterno said the only allegation he knew of against Sandusky was made by assistant coach Mike McQueary in 2001.

So he lied in an interview, but not to the Grand Jury. Got it.

Dear god.

 

[The Commish]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Neither do I, but I'm guessing the "lack of institutional control," cop out they always use could be used here.

If there are NCAA rules they are breaking because of the lack of control. If a university gets busted for tax evasion at a federal level, they wouldn't have to deal with the NCAA since that's not an NCAA rule they are breaking rather a federal one.

 

[The Commish]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

I believe it was discussed closer to the beginning of the thread that there were other government agencies that could use the information obtained in this case and dramatically cut funding to PSU. I don't remember what agencies those were, but they would have to launch their own investigation and could use what was already uncovered. I do not remember if they could levy other sanctions (IIRC they couldn't), but they could strip millions of dollars in government funding.

The NCAA could?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Paterno's greatest sin by far was in 2001 when he convinced Curley not to report McQueary incident to the authorities. Lying to the grand jury pales in comparison.

 

[The Commish]

For the "death penalty" and "shut down the athletic program" folks....why do you draw the line at athletics? Trying to understand why the line's being drawn there. TIA

I haven't heard too many people wanting to shut down the whole athletic program. I would say shut down the football program because the evidence seems to suggest that this coverup occurred in an attempt to protect the reputation of the football program. Football was given priority over the safety and well-being of the boys that were being abused by Sandusky. That's why I think the football program should be given the death penalty.

And you don't believe that once this got outside the athletic department, those administrators were just looking at protecting the football program and not the PSU name in general?

Perhaps to a much lesser degree, but I think this was primarily and overwhelmingly about protecting the cash cow.

You give them a lot more credit than I do then.

Do you think Spanier's and Shultz's actions would've been different if instead of Sandusky being accused it was a Physics professor or groundskeeper?

I get the importance of it being in the athletic department. I do. That's not where I'm going. Folks want to go scorched earth on a whole department/program even though it wasn't program wide. That's guilty by association from my POV. I don't even have a problem with that theory/approach. What I'm wondering is if we do use the "guilty by association" route, why not take it all the way?

If a company cheats on their taxes, they still get punished even if it was just one accountant who fudged the books. They still punished if the person(s) responsible has left the company. Punishing that company does not mean everyone there is guilty. And the punishment is likely to have a negative effect on people who have nothing to do with it, from stockholders to employees who might get laid off because of the financial penalty. How is this any different?

Not everyone in the company gets fired. I'm good with punishment for the department.

 

[Dragons]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Neither do I, but I'm guessing the "lack of institutional control," cop out they always use could be used here.

If there are NCAA rules they are breaking because of the lack of control. If a university gets busted for tax evasion at a federal level, they wouldn't have to deal with the NCAA since that's not an NCAA rule they are breaking rather a federal one.

I don't follow college sports at all, so all this talk about nuking the football program doesn't interest me very much, but if the NCAA doesn't already have a rule saying, "Don't cover up criminal activities", they should probably implement it.

 

[belljr]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

I believe it was discussed closer to the beginning of the thread that there were other government agencies that could use the information obtained in this case and dramatically cut funding to PSU. I don't remember what agencies those were, but they would have to launch their own investigation and could use what was already uncovered. I do not remember if they could levy other sanctions (IIRC they couldn't), but they could strip millions of dollars in government funding.

The NCAA could?

Yep. At least I think sohttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/07/ncaa-statement-penn-state-freeh-report/1#.T_8MIpGtHVE

The NCAA reiterated Thursday that it will wait to make any decisions on penalties for Penn State after a report criticized school officials for failing to act appropriately to sex abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky. ....."Like everyone else, we are reviewing the final report for the first time today. As President Emmert wrote in his November 17th letter to Penn State President Rodney Erickson and reiterated this week, the university has four key questions, concerning compliance with institutional control and ethics policies, to which it now needs to respond. Penn State's response to the letter will inform our next steps, including whether or not to take further action. We expect Penn State's continued cooperation in our examination of these issues."

ETA: Oh I see you are talking more than just football, my apologies

 

[Dragons]

Paterno's greatest sin by far was in 2001 when he convinced Curley not to report McQueary incident to the authorities. Lying to the grand jury pales in comparison.

Agreed.

 

[The Commish]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Neither do I, but I'm guessing the "lack of institutional control," cop out they always use could be used here.

If there are NCAA rules they are breaking because of the lack of control. If a university gets busted for tax evasion at a federal level, they wouldn't have to deal with the NCAA since that's not an NCAA rule they are breaking rather a federal one.

I don't follow college sports at all, so all this talk about nuking the football program doesn't interest me very much, but if the NCAA doesn't already have a rule saying, "Don't cover up criminal activities", they should probably implement it.

The NCAA isn't a "law enforcement" agency like the FBI, CIA, state cops, local cops etc. There's no need to implement it since they are just around to monitor the silly rules they come up with.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Neither do I, but I'm guessing the "lack of institutional control," cop out they always use could be used here.

If there are NCAA rules they are breaking because of the lack of control. If a university gets busted for tax evasion at a federal level, they wouldn't have to deal with the NCAA since that's not an NCAA rule they are breaking rather a federal one.

If what happened here doesn't violate an NCAA rule or the spirit of one enough to allow them to drop a hammer on the football program then they really are the uselss organization I know them to be.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The first record of Penn State administrators being aware of Sandusky's actions came in May 1998 when the mother of a Second Mile participant reported Sandusky had bear-hugged her son in a Penn State shower.

According to the Freeh report, Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, director of finance Gary Schultz and head coach Joe Paterno were all aware of that investigation. Until now, it was unclear whether or not Paterno knew of the 1998 incident. His family has denied it, and Paterno's testimony before the grand jury indicated he didn't, but the Freeh report quotes an internal email from Curly to Schultz in which he asks if there's anything new with the investigation because "Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

link

Right. Paterno was concerned. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing. I don't know why you guys think this is some kind of smoking gun.

He lied to the grand jury about it.

Link?

link

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post. Instead, Paterno said the only allegation he knew of against Sandusky was made by assistant coach Mike McQueary in 2001.

So he lied in an interview, but not to the Grand Jury. Got it.

Wow.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

Read the question again. He told the truth.

You are kookoo for cocoa puffs.

 

[Joe Summer]

Read the question again. He told the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[yellowdog]

The first record of Penn State administrators being aware of Sandusky's actions came in May 1998 when the mother of a Second Mile participant reported Sandusky had bear-hugged her son in a Penn State shower.

According to the Freeh report, Penn State president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley, director of finance Gary Schultz and head coach Joe Paterno were all aware of that investigation. Until now, it was unclear whether or not Paterno knew of the 1998 incident. His family has denied it, and Paterno's testimony before the grand jury indicated he didn't, but the Freeh report quotes an internal email from Curly to Schultz in which he asks if there's anything new with the investigation because "Coach is anxious to know where it stands."

link

Right. Paterno was concerned. The investigation concluded that there was no wrongdoing. I don't know why you guys think this is some kind of smoking gun.

He lied to the grand jury about it.

Link?

link

Joe Paterno knew about and "followed closely" allegations that Jerry Sandusky abused a boy in a shower in 1998, and participated in a cover up by "repeatedly concealing critical facts" even when similar allegations were reported to him three years later, according to a Penn State internal investigation.

That's the opposite of what the late coach testified to under oath when he went before a grand jury in 2011. He also denied knowing anything about the 1998 report days before he died in January, when he agreed to an interview with The Washington Post. Instead, Paterno said the only allegation he knew of against Sandusky was made by assistant coach Mike McQueary in 2001.

So he lied in an interview, but not to the Grand Jury. Got it.

Wow.

Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

Read the question again. He told the truth.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does the NCAA have any power beyond the football program?

I've not followed the NCAA's involvement at all. From a NCAA perspective, what NCAA rules did they break that the NCAA may be able to punish them for? Genuine question that I don't know the answer to.

Neither do I, but I'm guessing the "lack of institutional control," cop out they always use could be used here.

If there are NCAA rules they are breaking because of the lack of control. If a university gets busted for tax evasion at a federal level, they wouldn't have to deal with the NCAA since that's not an NCAA rule they are breaking rather a federal one.

If what happened here doesn't violate an NCAA rule or the spirit of one enough to allow them to drop a hammer on the football program then they really are the uselss organization I know them to be.

Actually let me rephrase that - there doesn't need to be an NCAA rule on the books that says - don't cover up child abuse and rape for the protection of your football program and coach that make you so much money. It should be pretty apparant that you shouldn't do that, you know, because it's kids getting raped.I gotta be honest, the more we continue this conversation, the more I am leaning towards killing the program. If I had fiat power today, PSU football wouldn't exist for 5 years minimum. On top of the criminal convictions needed for the people involved. I understand you aren't a fan of guilt by association or that you want to know where the line is. I don't find it very unreasonable to say where the line is. I happy drawing it right at the Division I men's football program.

 

[Rayderr]

For the "death penalty" and "shut down the athletic program" folks....why do you draw the line at athletics? Trying to understand why the line's being drawn there. TIA

I haven't heard too many people wanting to shut down the whole athletic program. I would say shut down the football program because the evidence seems to suggest that this coverup occurred in an attempt to protect the reputation of the football program. Football was given priority over the safety and well-being of the boys that were being abused by Sandusky. That's why I think the football program should be given the death penalty.

And you don't believe that once this got outside the athletic department, those administrators were just looking at protecting the football program and not the PSU name in general?

Perhaps to a much lesser degree, but I think this was primarily and overwhelmingly about protecting the cash cow.

You give them a lot more credit than I do then.

Do you think Spanier's and Shultz's actions would've been different if instead of Sandusky being accused it was a Physics professor or groundskeeper?

I get the importance of it being in the athletic department. I do. That's not where I'm going. Folks want to go scorched earth on a whole department/program even though it wasn't program wide. That's guilty by association from my POV. I don't even have a problem with that theory/approach. What I'm wondering is if we do use the "guilty by association" route, why not take it all the way?

If a company cheats on their taxes, they still get punished even if it was just one accountant who fudged the books. They still punished if the person(s) responsible has left the company. Punishing that company does not mean everyone there is guilty. And the punishment is likely to have a negative effect on people who have nothing to do with it, from stockholders to employees who might get laid off because of the financial penalty. How is this any different?

Not everyone in the company gets fired. I'm good with punishment for the department.

That's what a lot of people in here want. In this case, the dept. is football.

 

[TexanFan02]

Read the question again. He told the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

He didn't know of any incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct. That was not the finding of the police investigation. He told the truth.

 

[yellowdog]

Read the question again. He told the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

He didn't know of any incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct. That was not the finding of the police investigation. He told the truth.

Please go through the thread and delete all your posts, we'll forget they ever happened.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Read the question again. He told the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

He didn't know of any incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct. That was not the finding of the police investigation. He told the truth.

Wow, so your point is that technically--because the earlier 1998 investigation by cops, DA, campus police, etc, which he followed closely and was updated about, was an allegation of improper contact between Sandusky and a kid but no charges were brought--that Paterno answered correctly that he was unaware of even a rumor about inappropriate sexual conduct with young boys? You are unbelievable.Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

 

[TexanFan02]

Read the question again. He told the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

He didn't know of any incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct. That was not the finding of the police investigation. He told the truth.

Wow, so your point is that technically--because the earlier 1998 investigation by cops, DA, campus police, etc, which he followed closely and was updated about, was an allegation of improper contact between Sandusky and a kid but no charges were brought--that Paterno answered correctly that he was unaware of even a rumor about inappropriate sexual conduct with young boys? You are unbelievable.Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

There was a thorough investigation which concluded that nothing of an inappropriate sexual nature had taken place. So yes, he was technically not lying.

 

[mad sweeney]

Patiently awaiting the spin from the Paterno family.

We are in the process of reviewing the Freeh report and will need some time before we can comment in depth on its findings and conclusions. From the moment this crisis broke, Joe Paterno supported a comprehensive, fair investigation. He always believed, as we do, that the full truth should be uncovered.

From what we have been able to assess at this time, it appears that after reviewing 3 million documents and conducting more than 400 interviews, the underlying facts as summarized in the report are almost entirely consistent with what we understood them to be. The 1998 incident was reported to law enforcement and investigated. Joe Paterno reported what he was told about the 2001 incident to Penn State authorities and he believed it would be fully investigated. The investigation also confirmed that Sandusky’s retirement in 1999 was unrelated to these events.

One great risk in this situation is a replaying of events from the last 15 years or so in a way that makes it look obvious what everyone must have known and should have done. The idea that any sane, responsible adult would knowingly cover up for a child predator is impossible to accept. The far more realistic conclusion is that many people didn’t fully understand what was happening and underestimated or misinterpreted events. Sandusky was a great deceiver. He fooled everyone – law enforcement, his family, coaches, players, neighbors, University officials, and everyone at Second Mile.

Joe Paterno wasn’t perfect. He made mistakes and he regretted them. He is still the only leader to step forward and say that with the benefit of hindsight he wished he had done more. To think, however, that he would have protected Jerry Sandusky to avoid bad publicity is simply not realistic. If Joe Paterno had understood what Sandusky was, a fear of bad publicity would not have factored into his actions.



We appreciate the effort that was put into this investigation. The issue we have with some of the conclusions is that they represent a judgment on motives and intentions and we think this is impossible. We have said from the beginning that Joe Paterno did not know Jerry Sandusky was a child predator. Moreover, Joe Paterno never interfered with any investigation. He immediately and accurately reported the incident he was told about in 2001.

It can be argued that Joe Paterno should have gone further. He should have pushed his superiors to see that they were doing their jobs. We accept this criticism. At the same time, Joe Paterno and everyone else knew that Sandusky had been repeatedly investigated by authorities who approved his multiple adoptions and foster children. Joe Paterno mistakenly believed that investigators, law enforcement officials, University leaders and others would properly and fully investigate any issue and proceed as the facts dictated.

This didn’t happen and everyone shares the responsibility.

The red: Ooooooh, what a great guy. After someone else blabbed about what he covered up and enabled, he mumbled something about wishing he'd done the right thing before X amount more kids were raped. What a stand-up guy. I guess we can forgive him for 10 years of silence.The rest of the bolded:

1- Uh, at least 4 people DID do it, and it is impossible to accept it by any reasonable and sane person. But it actually happened by at least 4 people (5 counting the coward McQueary).

2- Uh, it happened and is backed up by emails.

3- Uh, it happened and is backed up by emails.

4- If by immediately you mean after being told of some "fondling of a sexual nature" in the shower and then waiting until after everyone had a nice weekend then sure.

5- No, it can't be. That's a fact that even he admitted.

I know it must be utterly terrible for them to deal with this, but this letter is absurd and full of half truths and blatantly proven lies.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Read the question again. He told the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

He didn't know of any incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct. That was not the finding of the police investigation. He told the truth.

Wow, so your point is that technically--because the earlier 1998 investigation by cops, DA, campus police, etc, which he followed closely and was updated about, was an allegation of improper contact between Sandusky and a kid but no charges were brought--that Paterno answered correctly that he was unaware of even a rumor about inappropriate sexual conduct with young boys? You are unbelievable.Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

There was a thorough investigation which concluded that nothing of an inappropriate sexual nature had taken place. So yes, he was technically not lying.

Wow. You are going down with Paterno. Sad.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

There was a thorough investigation which concluded that nothing of an inappropriate sexual nature had taken place.

According to the report, the DA's decision not to bring charges in 1998 was due to a (possibly biased) counselor's report that would have damaged the likelihood of getting a conviction. The DA never concluded Sandusky acted appropriately.

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm going to read the whole thing eventually, but can't right now. What does it say about the coward McQueary? The summary lambasts the Big 4, but leaves the coward McQueary out of the condemnation list. As far as I'm concerned, he's reprehensible in this issue as well for his role in keeping the status quo (other than of course him being promoted through the ranks).

McQueary wasn't exactly a powerful guy like the others. He saw the shower rape, told Paterno and Curley about it, and apparently thought they would deal with it appropriately. Probably not the best judgment but he doesn't appear to have been complicit in the coverup.

He stayed there and saw Sandusky with other kids. Of all the people involved in the cover up, he had way more reason than any to freak the #### out if he ever saw Sandusky again. But he didn't. He may not have been involved in the cover up directly, but his silence certainly enabled it to happen.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'm going to read the whole thing eventually, but can't right now. What does it say about the coward McQueary? The summary lambasts the Big 4, but leaves the coward McQueary out of the condemnation list. As far as I'm concerned, he's reprehensible in this issue as well for his role in keeping the status quo (other than of course him being promoted through the ranks).

McQueary wasn't exactly a powerful guy like the others. He saw the shower rape, told Paterno and Curley about it, and apparently thought they would deal with it appropriately. Probably not the best judgment but he doesn't appear to have been complicit in the coverup.

He stayed there and saw Sandusky with other kids. Of all the people involved in the cover up, he had way more reason than any to freak the #### out if he ever saw Sandusky again. But he didn't. He may not have been involved in the cover up directly, but his silence certainly enabled it to happen.

Absolutely. He is among the worst of the worst in this whole things. From his very first second of involvement he has almost always done the wrong or insufficient thing until the very end, when it could be argued he was forced to testify about what he saw.

 

[The Commish]

Actually let me rephrase that - there doesn't need to be an NCAA rule on the books that says - don't cover up child abuse and rape for the protection of your football program and coach that make you so much money. It should be pretty apparant that you shouldn't do that, you know, because it's kids getting raped.I gotta be honest, the more we continue this conversation, the more I am leaning towards killing the program. If I had fiat power today, PSU football wouldn't exist for 5 years minimum. On top of the criminal convictions needed for the people involved. I understand you aren't a fan of guilt by association or that you want to know where the line is. I don't find it very unreasonable to say where the line is. I happy drawing it right at the Division I men's football program.

Is going beyond the football program to all those associated with the guilty few going too far in your opinion?

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't understand ridiculing Paterno's family in this. They're not the ones who covered up the scandal. They're simply trying to defend/come to terms with the despicable actions from their father/husband. I can't imagine how I would react if I found out a close family member was a key conspirator in covering up/enabling years of child molestation.

I would say "No comment" and hide from the media. I definitely wouldn't fuel the fire with attempts at defense that are clearly incorrect, especially while prefacing it with "We haven't read the report yet, but..." and then spew a bunch of wrong. I'd go away.

 

[TexanFan02]

There was a thorough investigation which concluded that nothing of an inappropriate sexual nature had taken place.

According to the report, the DA's decision not to bring charges in 1998 was due to a (possibly biased) counselor's report that would have damaged the likelihood of getting a conviction. The DA never concluded Sandusky acted appropriately.

That's what somebody else said. The DA is dead and the prosecutor won't talk. I will take back the part of my statement about what they concluded, we don't know what they concluded, just that they didn't charge him. From the emails by the Penn State people, they were told he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

[The Commish]

That's what a lot of people in here want. In this case, the dept. is football.

AH! We are starting out at different places. I am thinking of the football part as a child company of the larger company. We're talking past each other. Apologies.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm going to read the whole thing eventually, but can't right now. What does it say about the coward McQueary? The summary lambasts the Big 4, but leaves the coward McQueary out of the condemnation list. As far as I'm concerned, he's reprehensible in this issue as well for his role in keeping the status quo (other than of course him being promoted through the ranks).

McQueary wasn't exactly a powerful guy like the others. He saw the shower rape, told Paterno and Curley about it, and apparently thought they would deal with it appropriately. Probably not the best judgment but he doesn't appear to have been complicit in the coverup.

He stayed there and saw Sandusky with other kids. Of all the people involved in the cover up, he had way more reason than any to freak the #### out if he ever saw Sandusky again. But he didn't. He may not have been involved in the cover up directly, but his silence certainly enabled it to happen.

Sure, but all that seems somewhat outside the scope of what Freeh was investigating. McQueary's inaction doesn't really reflect on Penn State in the same way as the actions of the school administrators and athletic director and legendary football coach.

 

[Todd Andrews]

There was a thorough investigation which concluded that nothing of an inappropriate sexual nature had taken place.

According to the report, the DA's decision not to bring charges in 1998 was due to a (possibly biased) counselor's report that would have damaged the likelihood of getting a conviction. The DA never concluded Sandusky acted appropriately.

That's what somebody else said. The DA is dead and the prosecutor won't talk. I will take back the part of my statement about what they concluded, we don't know what they concluded, just that they didn't charge him. From the emails by the Penn State people, they were told he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

So did Paterno know of a rumor of inappropriate sexual contact between Sandusky and a young boy prior to 2001?By the way, it is remarkable that you think it somehow defends Paterno to say that he technically didnt lie to the grand jury (when he clearly did) but it is ok that he lied to the Washington Post about the same issue.

 

[mad sweeney]

Email I just received:

A MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Today with the report released by Judge Louis Freeh, the Penn State Board of Trustees delivered on the commitment we made last November when we engaged Judge Freeh to conduct an independent investigation into the University's actions regarding former Penn State employee, Jerry Sandusky, and the handling of allegations of the child abuse crimes of which he has since been found guilty.

Judge Freeh and his team conducted a rigorous, eight-month investigation into all aspects of the University's actions to determine where breakdowns occurred and what changes should be made for the future. We like many others have eagerly anticipated Judge Freeh's Report of the findings of his investigation.

His report has just been released at http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/ and we currently are reviewing his findings and recommendations. We expect a comprehensive analysis of our policies, procedures and controls related to identifying and reporting crimes and misconduct, including failures or gaps that may have allowed alleged misconduct to go undetected or unreported. We will provide our initial response later today.

We want to ensure we are giving the report careful scrutiny and consideration before making any announcements or recommendations. We are convening an internal team comprising the Board of Trustees, University administration and our legal counsel to begin analyzing the report and digesting Judge Freeh's findings.

As we anticipate the review and approval process will take some time, our initial response and immediate next steps will be presented at 3:30 at the Dayton/Taylor Conference Room at the Hilton Scranton & Conference Center.

These top-line reactions will provide an overview of our process for developing and implementing a plan once we have studied the report and have a better understanding of what it means and how we can implement findings to strengthen Penn State's role as a leading academic institution and ensure that what occurred will never be allowed to happen again.

Uh, no buddy, it isn't alleged anymore. He's been convicted, that's when you get to remove the alleged part.

 

[Joe Summer]

There was a thorough investigation which concluded that nothing of an inappropriate sexual nature had taken place. So yes, he was technically not lying.

Ah, I see the problem here: you've never been taught the definition of the word "inappropriate".

 

[shader]

The victims need to sue Penn State to the degree that the university is forced to close its doors.

 

[Joe Summer]

So did Paterno know of a rumor of inappropriate sexual contact between Sandusky and a young boy prior to 2001?

"It's appropriate as long as no charges are filed!" /TexanFan

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

According to the report, the DA's decision not to bring charges in 1998 was due to a (possibly biased) counselor's report that would have damaged the likelihood of getting a conviction. The DA never concluded Sandusky acted appropriately.

That's what somebody else said. The DA is dead and the prosecutor won't talk.

Good catch. The report makes it seem like that was the reason, but the source wouldn't have known if that was true.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So did Paterno know of a rumor of inappropriate sexual contact between Sandusky and a young boy prior to 2001?

"It's appropriate as long as no charges are filed!" /TexanFan

Texanfan has very high standards in these matters.

 

[mad sweeney]

Part of that report that goes into McQueary telling Joe, and Joe moving up the chain etc., comes off like a bad game of telephone. They all are at fault, but the witness of the incident needs to tell his superior in detail what he saw and/or needs to be the one calling the police because only the witness can give the most clear and accurate description. Lots of wrongdoing here, but man, if you see something like this you have to know that your description is the one that counts.

Joe said to the Grand Jury that the coward McQueary told him of "fondling of a sexual nature" in the shower. After the scandal broke, Joe tried to downplay it saying he thought it was just "horsing around", but contrary to the GJ testimony. McQ deserves a LOT more blame than he's getting, but Joe knew far more than enough to shut it down in 2001, even if he didn't believe the 98 incident (which I don't believe that he didn't know).

 

[NCCommish]

Read the question again. He told the truth.

Keep telling yourself that.

He didn't know of any incidents of inappropriate sexual conduct. That was not the finding of the police investigation. He told the truth.

Wow, so your point is that technically--because the earlier 1998 investigation by cops, DA, campus police, etc, which he followed closely and was updated about, was an allegation of improper contact between Sandusky and a kid but no charges were brought--that Paterno answered correctly that he was unaware of even a rumor about inappropriate sexual conduct with young boys? You are unbelievable.Q: Other than the incident that Mike McQueary reported to you, do you know in any way, through rumor, direct knowledge or any other fashion, of any other inappropriate sexual conduct by Jerry Sandusky with young boys?

A: I do not know of anything else that Jerry Sandusky would be involved in, no. I do not know of it.

There was a thorough investigation which concluded that nothing of an inappropriate sexual nature had taken place. So yes, he was technically not lying.

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is."