Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (1 Viewer)

[Apple Jack]

Those of you who are claiming this cover-up was all about money are in denial as wellIt is way worse than thatThere was very little money or permanent damage at risk if the university discovers a child molester in their midst and does the right thing about it. A little egg on the face, public apologies, possibly some financial settlements with a few families which would really be a drop in the bucket.

Hey, I might be wrong, but it has nothing to do with denial.

 

[JZilla]

Those of you who are claiming this cover-up was all about money are in denial as wellIt is way worse than thatThere was very little money or permanent damage at risk if the university discovers a child molester in their midst and does the right thing about it. A little egg on the face, public apologies, possibly some financial settlements with a few families which would really be a drop in the bucket.

At least part of the motivation was protecting Sandusky, someone they considered a friend and former colleague, not a monster. One of the emails talked about how not going to the authorities was the most "humane" approach. They didn't want to destroy this guy's life.

I think that was pretty much all the motivation, and it is utterly unbelievable and inexcusable.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Put an agent on campus who gives Curtis Enis $1,000 and President Spanier won't tolerate that and will aggressively ensure the agent is prosecuted. Tell him the defensive coordinator is raping little kids in the football facilities and he'll cover it up. Great guy. Can't believe anyone doesn't think this isn't a football issue.

I don't think your logic here is sound. Those are both football issues. The fact that Spanier went after Nalley so hard but didn't do anything about Sandusky makes the case that the issue was with the person (Spanier, therefore Paterno) and not the whole program.

Wasted breath GB.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Those of you who are claiming this cover-up was all about money are in denial as wellIt is way worse than thatThere was very little money or permanent damage at risk if the university discovers a child molester in their midst and does the right thing about it. A little egg on the face, public apologies, possibly some financial settlements with a few families which would really be a drop in the bucket.

At least part of the motivation was protecting Sandusky, someone they considered a friend and former colleague, not a monster. One of the emails talked about how not going to the authorities was the most "humane" approach. They didn't want to destroy this guy's life.

Correct, and if we're being honest with ourselves, we'd probably do the same thing with some we were close with: make damn sure before calling the authorities. But the problem is that the second time they heard about something, they had to act. Either call Child Services, or launch an internal investigation into it and find out the truth. And the guys closest to the monster weren't going to do that. They didn't really believe this guy they've known so long could do that. So the other two guys, Schultz and Spanier, HAD to act. They had to. Just ridiculous that they didn't.

 

[The Commish]

Put an agent on campus who gives Curtis Enis $1,000 and President Spanier won't tolerate that and will aggressively ensure the agent is prosecuted. Tell him the defensive coordinator is raping little kids in the football facilities and he'll cover it up. Great guy. Can't believe anyone doesn't think this isn't a football issue.

I don't think your logic here is sound. Those are both football issues. The fact that Spanier went after Nalley so hard but didn't do anything about Sandusky makes the case that the issue was with the person (Spanier, therefore Paterno) and not the whole program.

Wasted breath GB.

In effort to be clear, the comment was not directed specifically at you so you can relax. There are several folks here that have the same opinion as you. You're all wrong. This is a child molestation issue. Trying to frame it as a football issue is silly.

 

[The Commish]

Those of you who are claiming this cover-up was all about money are in denial as wellIt is way worse than thatThere was very little money or permanent damage at risk if the university discovers a child molester in their midst and does the right thing about it. A little egg on the face, public apologies, possibly some financial settlements with a few families which would really be a drop in the bucket.

At least part of the motivation was protecting Sandusky, someone they considered a friend and former colleague, not a monster. One of the emails talked about how not going to the authorities was the most "humane" approach. They didn't want to destroy this guy's life.

Correct, and if we're being honest with ourselves, we'd probably do the same thing with some we were close with: make damn sure before calling the authorities. But the problem is that the second time they heard about something, they had to act. Either call Child Services, or launch an internal investigation into it and find out the truth. And the guys closest to the monster weren't going to do that. They didn't really believe this guy they've known so long could do that. So the other two guys, Schultz and Spanier, HAD to act. They had to. Just ridiculous that they didn't.

The nature of the beast regardless of the physical backdrop.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Put an agent on campus who gives Curtis Enis $1,000 and President Spanier won't tolerate that and will aggressively ensure the agent is prosecuted. Tell him the defensive coordinator is raping little kids in the football facilities and he'll cover it up. Great guy. Can't believe anyone doesn't think this isn't a football issue.

I don't think your logic here is sound. Those are both football issues. The fact that Spanier went after Nalley so hard but didn't do anything about Sandusky makes the case that the issue was with the person (Spanier, therefore Paterno) and not the whole program.

Wasted breath GB.

In effort to be clear, the comment was not directed specifically at you so you can relax. There are several folks here that have the same opinion as you. You're all wrong. This is a child molestation issue. Trying to frame it as a football issue is silly.

To be clear, the bolded is why I'm laughing my ### off at you. You're convinced you're always right no matter what.If you're going to lump me in a "wrong" crowd at least get my perspective correct. I agree it's a child molestation issue. I also believe it's a football program issue. It's not a case of choosing one or the other for me.

 

[Premier]

There are a lot of statues of sports figures around this country

Is this true? I can't really think of any I know.

The Carolina Panthers have a statue of Sam Mills at their stadium.

This has to be the lamest statue ever.

Any statue of you would be a bronzed pile of poo.

What are you? 4?

No, I'm someone who thinks you aren't a nice person, Capella.

Because I think a Sam Mills statue is lame? Uh.....Simey?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

At least part of the motivation was protecting Sandusky, someone they considered a friend and former colleague, not a monster. One of the emails talked about how not going to the authorities was the most "humane" approach. They didn't want to destroy this guy's life.

Correct, and if we're being honest with ourselves, we'd probably do the same thing with some we were close with: make damn sure before calling the authorities. But the problem is that the second time they heard about something, they had to act. Either call Child Services, or launch an internal investigation into it and find out the truth. And the guys closest to the monster weren't going to do that. They didn't really believe this guy they've known so long could do that. So the other two guys, Schultz and Spanier, HAD to act. They had to. Just ridiculous that they didn't.

I think this is where the "football issue" part comes in. Schultz and Spanier probably didn't care about Sandusky that much, but they cared about maintaining good relations with Paterno and the football program in general. I think they were reluctant to act without Paterno's blessing.

 

[The Commish]

Put an agent on campus who gives Curtis Enis $1,000 and President Spanier won't tolerate that and will aggressively ensure the agent is prosecuted. Tell him the defensive coordinator is raping little kids in the football facilities and he'll cover it up. Great guy. Can't believe anyone doesn't think this isn't a football issue.

I don't think your logic here is sound. Those are both football issues. The fact that Spanier went after Nalley so hard but didn't do anything about Sandusky makes the case that the issue was with the person (Spanier, therefore Paterno) and not the whole program.

Wasted breath GB.

In effort to be clear, the comment was not directed specifically at you so you can relax. There are several folks here that have the same opinion as you. You're all wrong. This is a child molestation issue. Trying to frame it as a football issue is silly.

To be clear, the bolded is why I'm laughing my ### off at you. You're convinced you're always right no matter what.If you're going to lump me in a "wrong" crowd at least get my perspective correct. I agree it's a child molestation issue. I also believe it's a football program issue. It's not a case of choosing one or the other for me.

You were laughing before I made the comment. Are you psychic? It being a football coach is enough for you. You've made it clear. We get it. I just don't agree with the shotgun approach

 

[The Commish]

At least part of the motivation was protecting Sandusky, someone they considered a friend and former colleague, not a monster. One of the emails talked about how not going to the authorities was the most "humane" approach. They didn't want to destroy this guy's life.

Correct, and if we're being honest with ourselves, we'd probably do the same thing with some we were close with: make damn sure before calling the authorities. But the problem is that the second time they heard about something, they had to act. Either call Child Services, or launch an internal investigation into it and find out the truth. And the guys closest to the monster weren't going to do that. They didn't really believe this guy they've known so long could do that. So the other two guys, Schultz and Spanier, HAD to act. They had to. Just ridiculous that they didn't.

I think this is where the "football issue" part comes in. Schultz and Spanier probably didn't care about Sandusky that much, but they cared about maintaining good relations with Paterno and the football program in general. I think they were reluctant to act without Paterno's blessing.

Could be, but that's an excuse to justify the actions of people not in the football program. Two of the largest influences in the school. They made a decision to protect the football program over the children along with Paterno.

 

[JZilla]

At least part of the motivation was protecting Sandusky, someone they considered a friend and former colleague, not a monster. One of the emails talked about how not going to the authorities was the most "humane" approach. They didn't want to destroy this guy's life.

Correct, and if we're being honest with ourselves, we'd probably do the same thing with some we were close with: make damn sure before calling the authorities. But the problem is that the second time they heard about something, they had to act. Either call Child Services, or launch an internal investigation into it and find out the truth. And the guys closest to the monster weren't going to do that. They didn't really believe this guy they've known so long could do that. So the other two guys, Schultz and Spanier, HAD to act. They had to. Just ridiculous that they didn't.

I think this is where the "football issue" part comes in. Schultz and Spanier probably didn't care about Sandusky that much, but they cared about maintaining good relations with Paterno and the football program in general. I think they were reluctant to act without Paterno's blessing.

Could be, but that's an excuse to justify the actions of people not in the football program. Two of the largest influences in the school. They made a decision to protect the football program over the children along with Paterno.

No. They made a decision to protect one man along with Paterno.

 

[ICON211]

And that's what made it so hard to believe. I know people like to blame the PSU fans/Alumni for having their "head in the sand" but really it's almost illogical that so many, highly regarded people could let this skate. Not just Paterno. Spanier was very highly regarded. Curley was as well. And most fans were rooting for McQueary and thought he did an excellent job as an assistant. So it may be more fun to say we were all idiots last November. But the truth is that it was so illogical to do what they did that it defied belief.

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

Bad people do exist. People that care more about themselves and what they hold dear than other people do exist. There does not have to be a psychologically mitigating factor for every bad thing that people do. Almost everything Paterno and the rest of them did seems absolutely logical to avoid negative publicity for their school and football program. And it does matter if Paterno knew and accepted what was going on or if he did not believe it was happening.

 

[JZilla]

And that's what made it so hard to believe. I know people like to blame the PSU fans/Alumni for having their "head in the sand" but really it's almost illogical that so many, highly regarded people could let this skate. Not just Paterno. Spanier was very highly regarded. Curley was as well. And most fans were rooting for McQueary and thought he did an excellent job as an assistant. So it may be more fun to say we were all idiots last November. But the truth is that it was so illogical to do what they did that it defied belief.

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

Bad people do exist. People that care more about themselves and what they hold dear than other people do exist. There does not have to be a psychologically mitigating factor for every bad thing that people do. Almost everything Paterno and the rest of them did seems absolutely logical to avoid negative publicity for their school and football program. And it does matter if Paterno knew and accepted what was going on or if he did not believe it was happening.

The reason I keep lashing out at you folks who were right all along IS BECAUSE YOU WERE RIGHT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Put an agent on campus who gives Curtis Enis $1,000 and President Spanier won't tolerate that and will aggressively ensure the agent is prosecuted. Tell him the defensive coordinator is raping little kids in the football facilities and he'll cover it up. Great guy. Can't believe anyone doesn't think this isn't a football issue.

I don't think your logic here is sound. Those are both football issues. The fact that Spanier went after Nalley so hard but didn't do anything about Sandusky makes the case that the issue was with the person (Spanier, therefore Paterno) and not the whole program.

Wasted breath GB.

In effort to be clear, the comment was not directed specifically at you so you can relax. There are several folks here that have the same opinion as you. You're all wrong. This is a child molestation issue. Trying to frame it as a football issue is silly.

To be clear, the bolded is why I'm laughing my ### off at you. You're convinced you're always right no matter what.If you're going to lump me in a "wrong" crowd at least get my perspective correct. I agree it's a child molestation issue. I also believe it's a football program issue. It's not a case of choosing one or the other for me.

You were laughing before I made the comment. Are you psychic? It being a football coach is enough for you. You've made it clear. We get it. I just don't agree with the shotgun approach

Not a psychic. You've probably got 100 posts in this thread telling everyone how wrong they are because you don't agree with them. You're even painting this crowd into a corner they don't belong in by trying to create a molestation issue vs. a football issue. I've yet to see one poster say it's not a molestation issue. It's both.This would have never been covered up if it wasn't part of the football team. Because the football team had a coach that thought he was bigger than the university and his team generates millions for the school. And the football program acted as if they ran the university and the leadership allowed them to do so.

 

[fatness]

Earlier examples of Joe Paterno (and even Sue) trying to keep the public in the dark regarding problems with people within the PSU football program.

At Penn State, Triponey was among the few who stood up to Paterno, the legendary "JoePa" who for 61 years was synonymous with a football program that pumped millions of dollars into Penn State. And she paid dearly for it. At the end, nobody at the top backed her. And it didn't seem to matter to anyone whether she was right, or even if she had a point. At the heart of the problem, the Freeh report stated, were university leaders eager to please Paterno above all else, a rubber-stamp board of trustees, a president who discouraged dissent and an administration that was preoccupied with appearances and spin.

There were controversies about her decisions to cut off funding to a student radio program and revamp the student government. Spanier assured her that she was right to stick to her guns, but she was "hitting the brick wall in student discipline." Looking back, she says, "I was putting my neck out and taking a stand, but there weren't many people with me." And then one day in late 2004, as disciplinary sanctions were being considered against a member of the football team, she received a visit from Paterno's wife, who had tutored the player. He's a good kid, Sue Paterno said. Could they give him a break?

By the next year, 2005, she was battling Paterno himself over who controlled how football players were disciplined. Paterno also chafed over enforcing Penn State's code of conduct off campus. Spanier called a meeting at which Paterno angrily dominated the conversation, Triponey recalled. She summarized the meeting in an e-mail to Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley and others, complaining that Paterno "is insistent that he knows best how to discipline his players" and that her department should back off. She noted that Paterno preferred to keep the public in the dark about player infractions involving violence, and he pushed for not enforcing the student code of conduct off campus. She added that having "a major problem with Coach Paterno should not be our concern" in making disciplinary decisions.

"I must insist that the efforts to put pressure on us and try to influence our decisions related to specific cases ... simply MUST STOP," she wrote. "The calls and pleas from coaches, board members and others when we are considering a case are indeed putting us in a position that does treat football players differently and with greater privilege ... and it appears on our end to be a deliberate effort to use the power of the football program to sway our decisions in a way that is beneficial to the football program."

"I am very troubled by the manipulative, disrespectful, uncivil and abusive behavior of our football coach," she wrote. "It is quite shocking what this man -- who is idolized by people everywhere -- is teaching our students."

Paterno clearly seemed to resent "meddling" from outsiders, even if Triponey was simply doing her job. She saw the dangers of special treatment that placed football players under a softer standard than other students lived by. She said it wasn't right. But it was a battle she couldn't win. Paterno ridiculed her on a radio show as "that lady in Old Main" who couldn't possibly know how to handle students because "she didn't have kids."

Tensions reached the breaking point in 2007 over how to discipline half a dozen players who'd been arrested at a brawl at an off-campus apartment complex. Several students were injured; one beaten unconscious. Triponey met with Paterno and other university officials half a dozen times, although she preferred to remain neutral as the appeals hearing officer.

At the final meeting, Triponey urged the coach to advise his players to tell the truth. Paterno said angrily that he couldn't force his players to "rat" on each other since they had to practice and play together. Curley and Spanier backed him up on that point, she said.

 

[fatness]

Your explanation was that Paterno involved three other men in covering up something only he and McQueary knew about. No need to dig anyone up. That is not logical on its face.

Your assertion that Paterno was in denial is grounded in nothing.

 

[fatness]

I predict that within less than a month the board will reconsider their decision and remove the statue.

The statue is a bargaining chip with the NCAA. They will keep it up until it becomes strategically necessary for them to remove it to appease the NCAA.

They'll keep it until the threats of losing large alumni donations subside, which could be a long time.I'd guess that if it becomes a target of student vandalism (I believe the statue has a security guard near it now) they'll still leave it up, and ask for more guards or security cameras. Big bucks are tied to that statue.

 

[fatness]

What's striking to me about the Penn State students' reaction is their uniformity.

I have no clue why you're saying this. Student and alumni opinion at Penn State is split.

 

[fatness]

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

It makes sense for some students and alumni, sure.For Paterno it doesn't. He was overtly active for years in protecting the reputation of anyone involved with the football program.

 

[fatness]

You #######s were right but you've said a lot of terrible things to a lot of good people in this thread and for that you can go #### yourselves.

If you're going to point out things said in the past, there were some pretty ####ty things said by Paterno supporters and Penn State supporters in this topic also.

 

[timschochet]

What's striking to me about the Penn State students' reaction is their uniformity.

I have no clue why you're saying this. Student and alumni opinion at Penn State is split.

That wasn't my understanding. If you're correct about this, then I should not have written that, sorry.

 

[Bonzai]

You #######s were right but you've said a lot of terrible things to a lot of good people in this thread and for that you can go #### yourselves.

If you're going to point out things said in the past, there were some pretty ####ty things said by Paterno supporters and Penn State supporters in this topic also.

Is it really that hard to understand why Penn State folks might be messed up about this whole thing? Yes, I get that the real victims here are the kids, but Penn State supporters had nothing to do with that. Give it a rest.

 

[badmojo1006]

Earlier examples of Joe Paterno (and even Sue) trying to keep the public in the dark regarding problems with people within the PSU football program.

At Penn State, Triponey was among the few who stood up to Paterno, the legendary "JoePa" who for 61 years was synonymous with a football program that pumped millions of dollars into Penn State. And she paid dearly for it. At the end, nobody at the top backed her. And it didn't seem to matter to anyone whether she was right, or even if she had a point. At the heart of the problem, the Freeh report stated, were university leaders eager to please Paterno above all else, a rubber-stamp board of trustees, a president who discouraged dissent and an administration that was preoccupied with appearances and spin.

There were controversies about her decisions to cut off funding to a student radio program and revamp the student government. Spanier assured her that she was right to stick to her guns, but she was "hitting the brick wall in student discipline." Looking back, she says, "I was putting my neck out and taking a stand, but there weren't many people with me." And then one day in late 2004, as disciplinary sanctions were being considered against a member of the football team, she received a visit from Paterno's wife, who had tutored the player. He's a good kid, Sue Paterno said. Could they give him a break?

By the next year, 2005, she was battling Paterno himself over who controlled how football players were disciplined. Paterno also chafed over enforcing Penn State's code of conduct off campus. Spanier called a meeting at which Paterno angrily dominated the conversation, Triponey recalled. She summarized the meeting in an e-mail to Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley and others, complaining that Paterno "is insistent that he knows best how to discipline his players" and that her department should back off. She noted that Paterno preferred to keep the public in the dark about player infractions involving violence, and he pushed for not enforcing the student code of conduct off campus. She added that having "a major problem with Coach Paterno should not be our concern" in making disciplinary decisions.

"I must insist that the efforts to put pressure on us and try to influence our decisions related to specific cases ... simply MUST STOP," she wrote. "The calls and pleas from coaches, board members and others when we are considering a case are indeed putting us in a position that does treat football players differently and with greater privilege ... and it appears on our end to be a deliberate effort to use the power of the football program to sway our decisions in a way that is beneficial to the football program."

"I am very troubled by the manipulative, disrespectful, uncivil and abusive behavior of our football coach," she wrote. "It is quite shocking what this man -- who is idolized by people everywhere -- is teaching our students."

Paterno clearly seemed to resent "meddling" from outsiders, even if Triponey was simply doing her job. She saw the dangers of special treatment that placed football players under a softer standard than other students lived by. She said it wasn't right. But it was a battle she couldn't win. Paterno ridiculed her on a radio show as "that lady in Old Main" who couldn't possibly know how to handle students because "she didn't have kids."

Tensions reached the breaking point in 2007 over how to discipline half a dozen players who'd been arrested at a brawl at an off-campus apartment complex. Several students were injured; one beaten unconscious. Triponey met with Paterno and other university officials half a dozen times, although she preferred to remain neutral as the appeals hearing officer.

At the final meeting, Triponey urged the coach to advise his players to tell the truth. Paterno said angrily that he couldn't force his players to "rat" on each other since they had to practice and play together. Curley and Spanier backed him up on that point, she said.

Just read that article, well written. She tried, but it was like one person standing up to a tsunami.

 

[Borat]

And that's what made it so hard to believe. I know people like to blame the PSU fans/Alumni for having their "head in the sand" but really it's almost illogical that so many, highly regarded people could let this skate. Not just Paterno. Spanier was very highly regarded. Curley was as well. And most fans were rooting for McQueary and thought he did an excellent job as an assistant. So it may be more fun to say we were all idiots last November. But the truth is that it was so illogical to do what they did that it defied belief.

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

Bad people do exist. People that care more about themselves and what they hold dear than other people do exist. There does not have to be a psychologically mitigating factor for every bad thing that people do. Almost everything Paterno and the rest of them did seems absolutely logical to avoid negative publicity for their school and football program. And it does matter if Paterno knew and accepted what was going on or if he did not believe it was happening.

The reason I keep lashing out at you folks who were right all along IS BECAUSE YOU WERE RIGHT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

Dude... you were wrong. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead of lashing out at the people who tried to set you straight, just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

 

[tri-man 47]

Earlier examples of Joe Paterno (and even Sue) trying to keep the public in the dark regarding problems with people within the PSU football program.

There were controversies about her decisions to cut off funding to a student radio program and revamp the student government. Spanier assured her that she was right to stick to her guns, but she was "hitting the brick wall in student discipline." Looking back, she says, "I was putting my neck out and taking a stand, but there weren't many people with me." And then one day in late 2004, as disciplinary sanctions were being considered against a member of the football team, she received a visit from Paterno's wife, who had tutored the player. He's a good kid, Sue Paterno said. Could they give him a break?

I've been wondering about Paterno's wife and what she was thinking through all of this. Specifically, after McQuery talked to Paterno about what he observed, and Paterno sat on it through the weekend ...wouldn't Paterno discuss that with his wife of many decades? "Joe, what did Mike need to talk to you about? He seemed very upset."

A) "Oh, nothing, really." or (B) "He saw Sandusky doing things to a young boy in the shower. I just don't quite understand that."

In light of 1998, (A) doesn't make sense. If it's (B), how could they not discuss it and come to the realization that this was serious? Was she drinking the JoePa kool-aid too and telling him to just pass it up the chain of command? You'd think the maternalistic instinct would kick in and she'd be alarmed about harm to a child. But Sandusky's wife seems to have been clueless, so why should it be any different here. At the least, Mrs. P should keep quiet before people start pressing back on her about all this.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

You #######s were right but you've said a lot of terrible things to a lot of good people in this thread and for that you can go #### yourselves.

If you're going to point out things said in the past, there were some pretty ####ty things said by Paterno supporters and Penn State supporters in this topic also.

Is it really that hard to understand why Penn State folks might be messed up about this whole thing? Yes, I get that the real victims here are the kids, but Penn State supporters had nothing to do with that. Give it a rest.

Maybe the PSU supporters should have kept their distance when the story first broke instead of coming in trying to defend anyone and everyone about PSU except for Sandusky. JZilla is totally out of line lashing out at people now because he was wrong last fall.

 

[Mario Kart]

You #######s were right but you've said a lot of terrible things to a lot of good people in this thread and for that you can go #### yourselves.

 

[johnnycakes]

 

[Bonzai]

And that's what made it so hard to believe. I know people like to blame the PSU fans/Alumni for having their "head in the sand" but really it's almost illogical that so many, highly regarded people could let this skate. Not just Paterno. Spanier was very highly regarded. Curley was as well. And most fans were rooting for McQueary and thought he did an excellent job as an assistant. So it may be more fun to say we were all idiots last November. But the truth is that it was so illogical to do what they did that it defied belief.

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

Bad people do exist. People that care more about themselves and what they hold dear than other people do exist. There does not have to be a psychologically mitigating factor for every bad thing that people do. Almost everything Paterno and the rest of them did seems absolutely logical to avoid negative publicity for their school and football program. And it does matter if Paterno knew and accepted what was going on or if he did not believe it was happening.

The reason I keep lashing out at you folks who were right all along IS BECAUSE YOU WERE RIGHT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

Dude... you were wrong. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead of lashing out at the people who tried to set you straight, just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

Paterno being a bad guy and you being a dbag aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Borat]

And that's what made it so hard to believe. I know people like to blame the PSU fans/Alumni for having their "head in the sand" but really it's almost illogical that so many, highly regarded people could let this skate. Not just Paterno. Spanier was very highly regarded. Curley was as well. And most fans were rooting for McQueary and thought he did an excellent job as an assistant. So it may be more fun to say we were all idiots last November. But the truth is that it was so illogical to do what they did that it defied belief.

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

Bad people do exist. People that care more about themselves and what they hold dear than other people do exist. There does not have to be a psychologically mitigating factor for every bad thing that people do. Almost everything Paterno and the rest of them did seems absolutely logical to avoid negative publicity for their school and football program. And it does matter if Paterno knew and accepted what was going on or if he did not believe it was happening.

The reason I keep lashing out at you folks who were right all along IS BECAUSE YOU WERE RIGHT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

Dude... you were wrong. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead of lashing out at the people who tried to set you straight, just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

Paterno being a bad guy and you being a dbag aren't mutually exclusive.

See above

 

[pittstownkiller]

Dude... you were wrong. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead of lashing out at the people who tried to set you straight, just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

Paterno being a bad guy and you being a dbag aren't mutually exclusive.

Is this even debatable?

 

[Smack Tripper]

And that's what made it so hard to believe. I know people like to blame the PSU fans/Alumni for having their "head in the sand" but really it's almost illogical that so many, highly regarded people could let this skate. Not just Paterno. Spanier was very highly regarded. Curley was as well. And most fans were rooting for McQueary and thought he did an excellent job as an assistant. So it may be more fun to say we were all idiots last November. But the truth is that it was so illogical to do what they did that it defied belief.

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

Bad people do exist. People that care more about themselves and what they hold dear than other people do exist. There does not have to be a psychologically mitigating factor for every bad thing that people do. Almost everything Paterno and the rest of them did seems absolutely logical to avoid negative publicity for their school and football program. And it does matter if Paterno knew and accepted what was going on or if he did not believe it was happening.

The reason I keep lashing out at you folks who were right all along IS BECAUSE YOU WERE RIGHT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

And those that were wrong were and many still are wrong for the wrong reasons. Blind faith in anyone or anything, is nothing to be proud of

 

[ConstruxBoy]

And that's what made it so hard to believe. I know people like to blame the PSU fans/Alumni for having their "head in the sand" but really it's almost illogical that so many, highly regarded people could let this skate. Not just Paterno. Spanier was very highly regarded. Curley was as well. And most fans were rooting for McQueary and thought he did an excellent job as an assistant. So it may be more fun to say we were all idiots last November. But the truth is that it was so illogical to do what they did that it defied belief.

Which is why the "denial" argument is the really the only one that makes any sense at all. They let this skate because they didn't believe it was happening.

Bad people do exist. People that care more about themselves and what they hold dear than other people do exist. There does not have to be a psychologically mitigating factor for every bad thing that people do. Almost everything Paterno and the rest of them did seems absolutely logical to avoid negative publicity for their school and football program. And it does matter if Paterno knew and accepted what was going on or if he did not believe it was happening.

The reason I keep lashing out at you folks who were right all along IS BECAUSE YOU WERE RIGHT FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.

And those that were wrong were and many still are wrong for the wrong reasons.

Blind faith in anyone or anything, is nothing to be proud of

NOW you tell me....

 

[Borat]

Dude... you were wrong. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead of lashing out at the people who tried to set you straight, just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

Paterno being a bad guy and you being a dbag aren't mutually exclusive.

Is this even debatable?

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

 

[JZilla]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.Wrong reasons, tools.

 

[Borat]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.Wrong reasons, tools.

You were wrong, and now you're throwing a hissy fit over it. Grow up and learn how to own your mistakes.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.Wrong reasons, tools.

What are the right reasons they were right? What are the wrong reasons?

 

[JZilla]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.Wrong reasons, tools.

You were wrong, and now you're throwing a hissy fit over it. Grow up and learn how to own your mistakes.

I never said #### either way about it in the first place, other than I'm waiting to see. I only brought all this up because I've been so put off by some of the behavior you guys have shown in here. And continue to. Keep telling yourselves you're so much better than anybody who had trouble making sense of the whole thing, because it NEVER made sense until the Freeh report came out three days ago. Still barely does. And what I'm seeing now from most of you is that you still think the cover-up was all about money and reputation! Sure, you've had it figured out all along.

 

[mad sweeney]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.

Wrong reasons, tools.

You were wrong, and now you're throwing a hissy fit over it. Grow up and learn how to own your mistakes.

I never said #### either way about it in the first place, other than I'm waiting to see. I only brought all this up because I've been so put off by some of the behavior you guys have shown in here. And continue to. Keep telling yourselves you're so much better than anybody who had trouble making sense of the whole thing, because it NEVER made sense until the Freeh report came out three days ago. Still barely does. And what I'm seeing now from most of you is that you still think the cover-up was all about money and reputation! Sure, you've had it figured out all along.

What was it about then?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Dude... you were wrong. It happens to all of us from time to time. Instead of lashing out at the people who tried to set you straight, just accept that you made a mistake and move on.

Paterno being a bad guy and you being a dbag aren't mutually exclusive.

Is this even debatable?

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I did not make excuses for Paterno, all I said was that it would be easy for everyone to pin the blame on the dead guy. In much the same vein that the above statement is not mutually exclusive, how would you know if you ever enabled a pedophile unless your omnipotent. I on the other hand have had an encounter with a pedophile, have seen cover-ups and also seen the damage they do. BTW, I did not call you a D-Bag, I just was pointing out that the statement was obvious; whether it was applicable I left up to you.

 

[JZilla]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.

Wrong reasons, tools.

You were wrong, and now you're throwing a hissy fit over it. Grow up and learn how to own your mistakes.

I never said #### either way about it in the first place, other than I'm waiting to see. I only brought all this up because I've been so put off by some of the behavior you guys have shown in here. And continue to. Keep telling yourselves you're so much better than anybody who had trouble making sense of the whole thing, because it NEVER made sense until the Freeh report came out three days ago. Still barely does. And what I'm seeing now from most of you is that you still think the cover-up was all about money and reputation! Sure, you've had it figured out all along.

What was it about then?

It was about protecting SanduskyRead the report

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

What was it about then?

It was about protecting SanduskyRead the report

I've read the report and I'm not sure that you can come to a definitive conclusion about the motivations for the action/inaction of Spanier, Shultz, Curley and Paterno. Protecting Sandusky was a consideration, but I don't know if it was the only one for all four of them.

 

[ICON211]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.

Wrong reasons, tools.

You were wrong, and now you're throwing a hissy fit over it. Grow up and learn how to own your mistakes.

I never said #### either way about it in the first place, other than I'm waiting to see. I only brought all this up because I've been so put off by some of the behavior you guys have shown in here. And continue to. Keep telling yourselves you're so much better than anybody who had trouble making sense of the whole thing, because it NEVER made sense until the Freeh report came out three days ago. Still barely does. And what I'm seeing now from most of you is that you still think the cover-up was all about money and reputation! Sure, you've had it figured out all along.

What was it about then?

It was about protecting SanduskyRead the report

No. The report states:Taking into account the available witness statements and evidence, The Special Investigative Council finds that it is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the University - Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the University's Board of Trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large.

 

[JZilla]

I'd be curious to know what exact repercussions you think they might have feared. There's really not a lot to be lost by turning in a child molester, regardless of who it is. I understand there's some egg on the face, some mea culpas, maybe a small amount of settlement cash. Nothing that would make it even REMOTELY worth the risk of the consequences of covering it up.

The three flunkies may have had some of these things on their minds, but it's clear to me from the report that first and foremost they were doing what Joe said, because Joe is the boss.

Speculation as far as what all they considered, given that what they discussed was Jerry Jerry Jerry.

This was Joe protecting his guy and the rest of them going along with it. My opinion, sure. But I simply don't find it realistic that they would sensibly conclude that the name of the university would be soiled SO BADLY by an isolated incident that they should commit a felony to keep it under wraps.

But to make Joe happy.. they did it.

It's like ICON said, this is 6 bad people doing bad things.

 

[mad sweeney]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.

Wrong reasons, tools.

You were wrong, and now you're throwing a hissy fit over it. Grow up and learn how to own your mistakes.

I never said #### either way about it in the first place, other than I'm waiting to see. I only brought all this up because I've been so put off by some of the behavior you guys have shown in here. And continue to. Keep telling yourselves you're so much better than anybody who had trouble making sense of the whole thing, because it NEVER made sense until the Freeh report came out three days ago. Still barely does. And what I'm seeing now from most of you is that you still think the cover-up was all about money and reputation! Sure, you've had it figured out all along.

What was it about then?

It was about protecting SanduskyRead the report

 

[mad sweeney]

I'd be curious to know what exact repercussions you think they might have feared. There's really not a lot to be lost by turning in a child molester, regardless of who it is. I understand there's some egg on the face, some mea culpas, maybe a small amount of settlement cash. Nothing that would make it even REMOTELY worth the risk of the consequences of covering it up.The three flunkies may have had some of these things on their minds, but it's clear to me from the report that first and foremost they were doing what Joe said, because Joe is the boss.Speculation as far as what all they considered, given that what they discussed was Jerry Jerry Jerry. This was Joe protecting his guy and the rest of them going along with it. My opinion, sure. But I simply don't find it realistic that they would sensibly conclude that the name of the university would be soiled SO BADLY by an isolated incident that they should commit a felony to keep it under wraps.But to make Joe happy.. they did it.It's like ICON said, this is 6 bad people doing bad things.

Only it wasn't an isolated incident.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I think there's at least some chance that McQueary didn't convey the seriousness of what he saw. It's hard to know who is telling the truth about that. If McQueary really made it just sound like "horseplay", the actions of the rest of them seem somewhat more understandable.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I may be a dbag, but I've never made excuses for someone who enabled a pedophile. Can you say the same thing?

I don't recall saying anything terrible to anyone in this thread.

Sad. You're a small man, Borat, and I pity you.

Wrong reasons, tools.

You were wrong, and now you're throwing a hissy fit over it. Grow up and learn how to own your mistakes.

I never said #### either way about it in the first place, other than I'm waiting to see. I only brought all this up because I've been so put off by some of the behavior you guys have shown in here. And continue to. Keep telling yourselves you're so much better than anybody who had trouble making sense of the whole thing, because it NEVER made sense until the Freeh report came out three days ago. Still barely does. And what I'm seeing now from most of you is that you still think the cover-up was all about money and reputation! Sure, you've had it figured out all along.

What was it about then?

It was about protecting SanduskyRead the report

You are really looking terrible in this thread!

 

[JZilla]

I'd be curious to know what exact repercussions you think they might have feared. There's really not a lot to be lost by turning in a child molester, regardless of who it is. I understand there's some egg on the face, some mea culpas, maybe a small amount of settlement cash. Nothing that would make it even REMOTELY worth the risk of the consequences of covering it up.The three flunkies may have had some of these things on their minds, but it's clear to me from the report that first and foremost they were doing what Joe said, because Joe is the boss.Speculation as far as what all they considered, given that what they discussed was Jerry Jerry Jerry. This was Joe protecting his guy and the rest of them going along with it. My opinion, sure. But I simply don't find it realistic that they would sensibly conclude that the name of the university would be soiled SO BADLY by an isolated incident that they should commit a felony to keep it under wraps.But to make Joe happy.. they did it.It's like ICON said, this is 6 bad people doing bad things.

Only it wasn't an isolated incident.

Well, having a child molester on the prowl was an isolated incidentNo one covered anything up in '98. It was investigated. Now, it can certainly be argued he should have been completely terminated, and that's what the mea culpas would be about, but everything that happened was at least above board.After the McQueary incident in 2001, there is no good reason NOT to go to the authorities. And looking at the timeline, that was the plan, they were being very cautious about it but they had it all planned out to report to Public Welfare. Until Joe switched the script at the last minute.